A Pre-Mass Shooting Thread

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=man+stops+gunman+with+gun

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
1. In Chicago earlier this year, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.”

2. In a Philadelphia barber shop earlier this year, Warren Edwards “opened fire on customers and barbers” after an argument. Another man with a concealed-carry permit then shot the shooter; of course it’s impossible to tell whether the shooter would have kept killing if he hadn’t been stopped, but a police captain was quoted as saying that, “I guess he [the man who shot the shooter] saved a lot of people in there.”

3. In a hospital near Philadelphia, in 2014, Richard Plotts shot and killed the psychiatric caseworker with whom he was meeting, and shot and wounded his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman. Silverman shot back, and took down Plotts. While again it’s not certain whether Plotts would have killed other people, Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

4. In Plymouth, Pa., in 2012, William Allabaugh killed one man and wounded another following an argument over Allabaugh being ejected from a bar. Allabaugh then approached a bar manager and Mark Ktytor and reportedly pointed his gun at them; Ktytor, who had a concealed-carry license, then shot Allabaugh. “The video footage and the evidence reveals that Mr. Allabaugh had turned around and was reapproaching the bar. Mr. [Ktytor] then acted, taking him down. We believe that it could have been much worse that night,” Luzerne County A.D.A. Jarrett Ferentino said.

5. Near Spartanburg, S.C., in 2012, Jesse Gates went to his church armed with a shotgun and kicked in a door. But Aaron Guyton, who had a concealed-carry license, drew his gun and pointed it at Gates, and other parishioners then disarmed Gates. Note that in this instance, unlike the others, it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone, but just brought the shotgun to church and kicked in the door to draw attention to himself or vent his frustration.

6. In Atlanta in 2009, Calvin Lavant and Jamal Hill broke into an apartment during a party and forced everyone to the floor. After they gathered various valuables, and separated the men and the women, and Lavant said to Hill, “we are about to have sex with these girls, then we are going to kill them all,” and began “discussing condoms and the number of bullets in their guns.” At that point, Sean Barner, a Marine who was attending Georgia State as part of the Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program, managed to get to the book bag he brought to the party; took out his gun; shot and scared away Hill; went into the neighboring room, where Lavant was about to rape one of the women; was shot at by Lavant, and shot back and hit Lavant, who then ran off and later died of his injuries. One of the women was shot and wounded in the shootout, but given the circumstances described in the sources I linked to, it seemed very likely that Lavant and Hill would have killed (as well as raped) some or all of the partygoers had they not been stopped. This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it on those grounds. But Barner was acting as a civilian, and carrying a gun as a civilian (he had a concealed carry license); indeed, if he had been on a military base, he would generally not have been allowed to carry a gun except when on security duty. [UPDATE: I added this item since the original post.]

7. In Winnemucca, Nev., in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with 300 people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed-carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.

8. In Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn’t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have (UPDATE: he apparently went to the church with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition).

9. In Edinboro, Pa., in 1998, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.

10. In Pearl, Miss., in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state.

Seems to me the FBI report is intentionally leaving information out.
 
Not at all - those are ten (in about half, incidentally, people still died or were wounded) between 1997 and 2015. I suspect the FBI aren't counting someone who never fires a shot as a 'shooter', or perhaps saying that 'exchanged gunfire' doesn't count if only one person fired. Even so, you've given five cases with bystanders' firearms involved at all in that timeframe: the FBI found five in which armed civilians played a part by shooting. I don't really see how this changes the argument: both are tiny numbers, compared with the number of mass shootings over that period.
 
Precisely. The FBI report (a proper study over a defined time period with defined criteria for event inclusion, not just a list of cherry-picked incidents) provides the proper context: that a very insignificant proportion of active shooter events are stopped by armed civilians.

Context is more important than anecdotes for policymaking.
 
Hmm, let's look up a study on this.



3% stopped by armed civilians. More than 4 times that by unarmed civilians. Interesting.

True, it is a very, very rare occurrence, but it is not a complete fantasy scenario on par with "Harry Potter" and "The Hobbit" as the political cartoon in useless's post would imply. The fact that it has occurred even just once makes that illustration nothing more than sensationalist political hyperbole.
 
Not at all - those are ten (in about half, incidentally, people still died or were wounded) between 1997 and 2015. I suspect the FBI aren't counting someone who never fires a shot as a 'shooter', or perhaps saying that 'exchanged gunfire' doesn't count if only one person fired. Even so, you've given five cases with bystanders' firearms involved at all in that timeframe: the FBI found five in which armed civilians played a part by shooting. I don't really see how this changes the argument: both are tiny numbers, compared with the number of mass shootings over that period.

Precisely. The FBI report (a proper study over a defined time period with defined criteria for event inclusion, not just a list of cherry-picked incidents) provides the proper context: that a very insignificant proportion of active shooter events are stopped by armed civilians.

Context is more important than anecdotes for policymaking.

Subtracting out the two that were pre-2001 I have given you 8 incidents which were resolved by armed civilians. If you look back to the FBI report over the same time period you see only 5 incidents. This alone should bring question to the validity of the FBI report. This wasn't to give you some anecdotal evidence but rather point out that your "offical" study is clearly biased. What they decidedly don't include is when incidents lack fatalities other then the shooter because an armed citizen stepped forward to stop it before it was considered a mass shooting. I read at least one story a week about how an armed individual is stopped by a "good-guy" with a gun.
 
I've got enough imagination, I flatter myself, to take no notice whether the shooting has happened or is just about to happen.

I can't see it makes any difference.

(Except to those who like to make platitudinous comments after the event, I guess.)

We can mourn equally in anticipation as in retrospect. And deplore the loss of life no matter when.

Incidentally, I thought maybe this thread was about a shooting of Catholics before Mass.

And, hey! Maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe there never will be the "next" shooting.

I'm not exactly optimistic about that, though.
 
I don't want to carry a gun. People shouldn't be forced to carry guns or rely on other random possibly trained or not "good" civilians carrying guns. The good guy with a gun argument is a fairly significant burden on society since it essentially implies that if you want to be safe--in a modern, civil society (?)--then it is your responsibility to walk around at all times with a loaded weapon. No thanks. That's a totally unreasonable, not to mention dangerous, public policy goal.

An armed society is not a polite society, it is a public standoff. You should be nice to people because you shouldn't be a douche bag, not because you are worried the other person could possibly kill you. What sort of paranoid world do some people want us to live in? I question the sanity of anyone suggesting that everyone should simply be armed, problem solved.
 
I don't want to carry a gun. People shouldn't be forced to carry guns or rely on other random possibly trained or not "good" civilians carrying guns. The good guy with a gun argument is a fairly significant burden on society since it essentially implies that if you want to be safe--in a modern, civil society (?)--then it is your responsibility to walk around at all times with a loaded weapon. No thanks. That's a totally unreasonable, not to mention dangerous, public policy goal.

An armed society is not a polite society, it is a public standoff. You should be nice to people because you shouldn't be a douche bag, not because you are worried the other person could possibly kill you. What sort of paranoid world do some people want us to live in? I question the sanity of anyone suggesting that everyone should simply be armed, problem solved.

You do not have to carry a gun if you do not want to.
No one is forcing you to do so.
There is no law that compels you to do so. (and yes, there have been a handful of towns in the US that have passed laws requiring its residents to have a gun in their residence but they have also included exemptions so that whoever did not want to do so could opt out without any sort of repercussions).

In the United States citizens have a constitutional right to own a firearm. And in most states, if a person wishes to conceal carry a firearm outside their home, they can apply to the state for a concealed carry permit.
 
Obviously, it is a mere Constitutional privilege to possess a firearm as even the most conservative justices of the Supreme Court have upheld mandatory criminal sentences for so-called unlawful possession. How can there be such a thing if it is a right?
 
You're missing the point chijohnaok. I don't have to carry a gun, but a lot of people, e.g. Rick Santorum recently in an interview on CNN, seem to think that a possible public safety solution to mass shootings is a more armed populace. The "good guy with a gun" theory of public safety. Which in reality is simply vigilante justice writ large if you boil it down. It's crackpot level.
 
If I can't trust cops to be good guys with their guns, how can I presume anyone wielding a gun is a good guy? Do I have a license do err on the side of safety and take a pre-emptive shot?
 
The police are just the armed among us having to subsidize the unarmed among us through unnecessary government spending.
 
You're missing the point chijohnaok. I don't have to carry a gun, but a lot of people, e.g. Rick Santorum recently in an interview on CNN, seem to think that a possible public safety solution to mass shootings is a more armed populace. The "good guy with a gun" theory of public safety. Which in reality is simply vigilante justice writ large if you boil it down. It's crackpot level.

Santorum is entitled to his opinion, but he is in no position to compel more people to carry a gun.

In the latest Real Clear Politics average of polls for the GOP primary Rick Santorum receives a whopping 0.3% (that's right, 1/3 of 1%). Santorum has no chance of winning the GOP nomination at this point and even if he did, and even if he were then elected President, it is very unlikely that any such requirement would ever be passed into law in the US.

In the last 20 years the number of privately owned firearms has increased 56% yet the gun homicide rate has decreased 49%.
Spoiler :

guns31.png

 
Obviously, it is a mere Constitutional privilege to possess a firearm as even the most conservative justices of the Supreme Court have upheld mandatory criminal sentences for so-called unlawful possession. How can there be such a thing if it is a right?

Some state laws have some limits on firearms ownership.
Federal law also prohibits possession of firearms or ammunition by convicted felons.
There are also federal laws limiting ownership of certain types of firearms like machine guns.

Those limits have been upheld by the courts.
 
Santorum is entitled to his opinion, but he is in no position to compel more people to carry a gun.

In the latest Real Clear Politics average of polls for the GOP primary Rick Santorum receives a whopping 0.3% (that's right, 1/3 of 1%). Santorum has no chance of winning the GOP nomination at this point and even if he did, and even if he were then elected President, it is very unlikely that any such requirement would ever be passed into law in the US.

In the last 20 years the number of privately owned firearms has increased 56% yet the gun homicide rate has decreased 49%.
Spoiler :

guns31.png


I'm not talking about a legal requirement.

Your second link seems to imply you think there is a correlation between more people being armed and less crime.
 
Thus my point that it is a privilege rather than a right. The Supreme Court, just yesterday refused to take a case where the lower court upheld local infringements.
 
Subtracting out the two that were pre-2001 I have given you 8 incidents which were resolved by armed civilians. If you look back to the FBI report over the same time period you see only 5 incidents. This alone should bring question to the validity of the FBI report. This wasn't to give you some anecdotal evidence but rather point out that your "offical" study is clearly biased. What they decidedly don't include is when incidents lack fatalities other then the shooter because an armed citizen stepped forward to stop it before it was considered a mass shooting. I read at least one story a week about how an armed individual is stopped by a "good-guy" with a gun.
You do realize you're quibbling over 3 incidents not being included in a study that looks at over a hundred active shooter events? And that the list you included has conjecture about what the shooters might have done? Okay, fine. Let's ignore the criteria of the study and add those. That brings up the number of active shooter events stopped by armed civilians up to a whopping...5 percent. Still less than half those stopped by noguns.

If you're not going to look at the context and are going to rely on mere suspicions instead of quantifiable data, I have nothing to discuss with you. :coffee:
 
You do realize you're quibbling over 3 incidents not being included in a study that looks at over a hundred active shooter events? And that the list you included has conjecture about what the shooters might have done? Okay, fine. Let's ignore the criteria of the study and add those. That brings up the number of active shooter events stopped by armed civilians up to a whopping...5 percent. Still less than half those stopped by noguns.

If you're not going to look at the context and are going to rely on mere suspicions instead of quantifiable data, I have nothing to discuss with you. :coffee:

You missed the point. If I can provide you with 3 more incidents, and I can give you quite a few more from this year and last year alone. Then that means the FBI report failed at giving an unbiased presentation. They wanted to fit a narrative to detract from a proven and effective way to stop mass shootings. Again I read about a story a week about someone stopping an armed individual by simply having a gun themselves. Be it the numerous store owners who have stopped robberies to the individuals in the right place at the right time. The main stream media doesn't typically report on these cases because it wouldn't give them ratings. The FBI doesn't want more people buying guns so they publish a clearly biased report to make people think the "good guy with a gun" theory doesn't work. Your report and the data to back it up is clearly flawed.
 
Back
Top Bottom