Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
I don't think it really has any bearing on how well concealed carry prevents mass shootings from escalating, stops them, etc., because where people do mass shootings is clearly not random, but it's still neat.
Link:
apparently a bad guy with a gun is the person most responsible for stopping a bad guy with a gun
So armed citizens stopped 12 out of 433 attackers. Seems lower than is claimed by the gun lobby.
95% of people seeing this post had their brains autoshutdown and spit out "came in the fluffer".
looking for “came in the fluffer” because the time i spent with aella unblocked ruined me
The University of Texas tower shooting was ended by police, but citizens returning fire from the ground forced the shooter to take cover, which limited his ability to hit people.
Most of those suicides were in response to imminent threat of being shot. Same for "subdued."
The replies have only seen one Sankey diagram in their life and it shows
These data are not correct,
Fact: One tracking database shows that 41.3% of “active shooter events” were terminated by armed civilians. Outside of “gun free zones” the rate climbs to 63.5%.
Fact: One study shows that armed citizens responding to rampage killers result in 1/8th
Show more
Can't ever seen this type of chart again without thinking of the bang. "bad guy with a gun" ... an unintentional euphemism? 
So as a % of those stopped by bystanders versus those stopped by police. Bystanders have a higher success rate of stopping without shooting.
The vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones for a reason,
usually they commit suicide when confronted by someone else with a gun.
And it was really bad causal thinking. In fact, it made the opposite case than people think
I’d like the chart showing how many mass shootings happen in places without concealed carry or in no gun zones altogether like schools.
Also how many attempted shootings or individual shootings are stopped at 1 by a ‘bystander.’ Or how many deaths like mine are prevented by
Show more
I just wish we could find some kind of way to stop this from happening. The thought of having super secure classrooms with bulletproof glass is crazy
TLDR:
5% of the time a citizen shot the attacker, ending the situation before police came.
So - 25% chance a bystander will shoot or subdue the shooter (in fairness don’t know if these are in gun free zones). However, 72% of the time police either shoot or subdue attacker. What I’m seeing is more of a reason to increase police budgets and training.
The fact that 61%
Show more
Given that most active shooter is bad guys shooting at bad guys, I find it hard to believe that they didn’t make the chart.
Nobody in their right mind goes on a shooting spree. Let's start there, 5150 these whackjobs before they go postal, then we can revisit these statistics in a decade.
How many of this is just black on black gang violence and how much is domestic terrorism?
By simply putting violent criminals in jail the majority of these would disappear.
Funny how encounters that end with no one actually being shot fall under "left the scene"... Most of the time, the gun isn't actually fired. It's shown or threatened, and the dude runs (or it is fired but it misses).
Gun-free zones strip good people from their ability to defend themselves in the most susceptible places.
Did they specify which 433 events they chose? Seems arbitrary and there’s no context around that number in the graphic.
Over 1.5million people are saved per year by defensive use of a firearm per federal investigation stats. All this article is doing is pointing out the fact that these events happen in gun free zones, or where a concealed carry individual was not at, notice how it doesnt tell you
Show more
The problem with statistics is that most people don't understand what statistics are and what they are capable of. Using stats about the past is not usually a valid way of predicting what might happen under untested future conditions, such as after changes in legislation
I'd suggest caution here. The NYT has a strong bias against guns, and this bias creates a blind spot for them. The Crime Prevention Research Center has dramatically higher estimates of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians. (crimeresearch.org)
What’s missing is how many of these took place in “gun free zones.” Likely a majority, as these are hit most by these bad actors for being soft targets.
Truly sad on the bystander statistic prior to police showing up.
THAT number should and can be improved.
Only 15 of 433 surrendered. Not easy people to reason with it seems.
Its not a mass shooting if the "good guy with a gun" acts fast enough.
It never makes the list
Wait till you find out that a vast majority of these happen in areas that restrict people from carrying a weapon to defend themselves.
That sure would be an inconvenient truth.
1.7M defensive uses of firearms occur per year.
This reaffirms my stance. You’ve got 64 more mass casualty events without armed citizens.
Why isn't there a branch for "cops arrest parents while refusing to enter the classroom"?
This data will always be skewed because most mass shootings happen in places where concealed weapons are banned.
did they also bring up that all of the attacks (that aren't gang related) are in gun free zones where there are no good guys with guns for minutes?
That only describes violent attacks that stopped… after they had already started. What is the number of shootings that didn’t start at all because a defensive shooter was present and/or responded quickly?
Shot by a bystander about as often as they surrender??? Bystanders could’ve used guns to subdue as well. Keep guns legal.
Tbh if I was armed during a shooting incident my main concern would be ensuring I and my family survive, not going mano e mano against the shooter.
Being armed increases that chance of survival.
Would be funny to see a graph titled: "Who stops a bad country with an invading army" that breaks things down with and without U.S. intervention, before and after, etc. People forget the shadow of deterrence as well as targeted arms control.
Ok, currently active shootings. Now do muggings, car jacking, rape, robbery, etc.
I read that without a weapon, if a woman is attacked by a rapist, there is a 50/50 chance that the rapist is successful. If she has a gun, it drops to 1/200.
What is the definition of, and how were the ‘433 active shooting attacks’ selected, for this graphic? Numbers are worthless without context.
Stats don't tell the whole story. Many potential attacks are prevented just by the threat that there might be people carrying guns. That's why attackers like to pick soft targets like schools where the chance of someone carrying is low.
This tells me that there are more bad guys with guns because fuck law and order and the law abiding citizens are less than the criminals because they are being infringed upon their right. I’m sure the good guy with a gun number is different based on pro and anti 2A law regions.
Approximately 1 in 8 incidents ended with a bystander shooting or subduing the attacker.
Knowingly deceptive. I say knowingly because I give the NYT the credit that they know how statistics work. The chart fails to account for concealed carry density. When there are more good guys with guns, you have less crime, which results in fewer cases of good guy intervention.
I read that report. In every case where the active shooter met armed resistance, the situation was resolved almost immediately. That’s why they train police to engage an active shooter immediately without waiting for backup. But police don’t always do that.
There's never been an incident where a bystander shot the perp after the police arrived?
If we consider the population of off-duty security guards and police, vs. everyone else, it's clear we could prevent many more deaths if everyone else was armed.
It's an interesting visualisation. But I can't help but feel that it somewhat masks the abject horror that a country should have enough shooting events to even be able to make a visualisation like this.
No one talking about the only 15 of 433 ‘bad guys’ that surrendered..they have made their choice and won’t stop until stopped.
I wonder how ALERRT sources and categorizes this information or did the New York Times do it themselves. It isn't like they have had to retract statements about firearms related articles.
It also doesn't indicate the scale of the spree. IIRC, a few years ago one of the anti-gun groups put out a thing showing that in the hundred most lethal spree killings, all were ended by the police.
I thought you could infer different conclusions than they did from that.
Hmm. Should the reader interpret 'active shooting' as a 'mass shooting' relevant to current gun control debates?
So roughly 30% of the time the police stopped the bad guy at the scene of the attack. Not a great percentage. And an important unanswered question here is when the police stopped them at the scene, how long on average did it take them? Every second matters in these situations.
Don't forget the Uvalde police were afraid to confront the shooter, and waited in the hallway for an hour while he shot kids & teachers.
So citizens have shot more school shooters than security guards? Are school security guards just another TSA situation where it’s really about the psychological effect and not actual effectiveness because that seems poor
Very interesting. Looks like subduing attackers is a more probable alternative. Arguably, a much better one too. Let's focus on that in training!
So 12 times out of 433, an active shooter was stopped by a random person with a gun. Doesn't sound like very many to me.
Usually in most armed violence crimes that are stopped by citizens with guns, the citizens shoot them before it becomes an “active shooting.” Not to mention, government regulation prohibits firearms on sites where most active shooters target. This is done on purpose.
I'm usually skeptical of news outlets but this looks like pretty good reporting. I like the visuals too.
Side note, it’s hilarious how the right’s go-to argument is that we need to prioritize mental health instead of introducing more common-sense gun regulation, but I haven’t seen a single policy recommendation from them on how to prioritize mental health that makes sense
I was half expecting one of the threads to read "came in fluffer."
So by this graphic, >95% of school shootings end without the “good guy with a gun” bystander stopping the shooting. Those are terrible odds. The “good guy with a gun” stopping the “bad guy with a gun” is a fallacy.
So, private guns are the problem 100% of the time, and are the solution 3% of the time.
Got it.
Time to restrict private ownership of semi-auto weapons, and work to repeal the 2A to pull the teeth of the fanatics.
Unfortunately the badguy suiciding was more than likely due to being trapped or injured by bystanders
So 2nd Amendment peeps are fighting for 2.8% of use cases (knowing martial arts works in 9.7%)
I wonder how many of those "died by suicide" were "upon confrontation" versus "my work here is done"?
Wasn't there an instance where a good guy stopped the bad guy with a gun & the police shot & killed the good guy? Found it. Could be more.
It seems conveniently they left out every shooting where the attacker left the scene after the police responded, which also probably happened less than random citizens responding.
What's missing here is the number of dead or the duration between when the police arrived vs after they shot or subdued the attacker.
Also it doesn't count if the attacker ran out of ammo. At that point it's just revenge.
So, preventing 2.5% of shootings justifying highest gun violence rate in the westen world?
I want to see their data on which of their categories occurred in gun free zones.