• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do civilians with guns ever stop mass shootings?

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,908
Reaction score
3,066
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I’m sure some are though to be fair, pretty much every mass shooting is started by a civilian with a gun too. :confused:
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
22,291
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.

That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.

This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
272,740
Reaction score
90,786
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I’m sure some are though to be fair, pretty much every mass shooting is started by a civilian with a gun too. :confused:

the people LEAST likely to be deterred by gun bans, gun waiting periods, gun free zones, magazine limits and all the other idiotic crap the Bannerrhoid movement concocts as a pretense of crime control, are those most likely to cause mass killings.

the only sure way to stop a mass killing is to make sure those attacked can kill the attacker
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
272,740
Reaction score
90,786
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.

That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.

This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.

example in 100+ years of its existence there has never been a mass shooting at the GRAND AMERICAN trap shoot where there are often 5000 people walking around with single shot or double barrel 12 Shotguns and tons of ammo

never a mass shooting at the USPSA nationals where there are hundreds of shooters walking around with 10-28 round semi automatic pistols being carried in speed rigs

none at the SASS nationals where guys dressed like old west gun fighters are packing single action revolvers, coach guns and lever action winchester rifles

None at the US Skeet championships either

and when I was the the olympic trials where people were armed with everything from $3000 air pistols to $11,000 Perazzi Mirage Skeet shotguns, we never worried about being attacked either

yet the Bannerrhoids tell me that its the presence of guns that makes us unsafe
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You mean that someone standing her man could have stopped the Orlando Massacre before 100 odd people were down? She would have been a hero.

Orlando would have never happened in most places. That was ONE GUY holding ~300 people hostage. He should have been "bum-rushed" and had his ass kicked after the first person he shot. I just don't get why people allowed themselves to be shot without fighting back en masse.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.

That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.

This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.

That's why I support the idea of "gun-heavy" zones, instead of gun-free zones. Teachers and school staff should have advanced firearms training as part of their continuing education and there should always be a contingent of armed teachers/staff in our schools. Put up BIG signs in front of the schools stating: "This is an armed campus. Any attacks on our children or staff will be met with deadly force."
 

HonestJoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
5,908
Reaction score
3,066
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
the only sure way to stop a mass killing is to make sure those attacked can kill the attacker
There’s no sure way to stop a mass killing and you can’t “make sure the attacked can kill” anyway. You can make it legal and easy for citizens to obtain and carry firearms but you can’t guarantee their presence in the event of a mass shooting or the competence of their response if they are.

I think you pro-gun people (gunnerhoids? ;) ) oversell your position just as much as the proponents of greater restrictions do.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Orlando would have never happened in most places. That was ONE GUY holding ~300 people hostage. He should have been "bum-rushed" and had his ass kicked after the first person he shot. I just don't get why people allowed themselves to be shot without fighting back en masse.

While I agree with that it takes a certain mentality of person to do that and for there to be enough people with that mentality present in order for it to succeed. Maybe this incident will make people think more about their options and condition them to be more likely to act if they ever find themselves in that same situation. Think about plane hijackings. There will never be another successful plane hijacking in the US because our population's way of thinking has changed from "comply and hope for the best" to "Let's roll" when it comes to that scenario. We need to get people thinking that way when they are on the ground as well.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Orlando would have never happened in most places. That was ONE GUY holding ~300 people hostage. He should have been "bum-rushed" and had his ass kicked after the first person he shot. I just don't get why people allowed themselves to be shot without fighting back en masse.

"bum-rushed", huh?
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You mean that someone standing her man could have stopped the Orlando Massacre before 100 odd people were down? She would have been a hero.

Not true the media would have failed to mention it.

12 times and remember these are GUN FREE areas being discussed in case you try to claim why so few.

Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.

Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.

Read more: 12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Not true the media would have failed to mention it.

12 times and remember these are GUN FREE areas being discussed in case you try to claim why so few.

Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.

Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.

Read more: 12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns

There's that, I guess. So, never stop the massacre till the blood is splashing across the floor, or you won't get you 15 minutes of fame. ;)
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,211
Reaction score
13,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Or, we should say: They almost never do.

To wit: The article cited 10 examples, covering a period of around 10 years. Even if we accept this at face value, there were well over 3000 mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were killed by one shooter in one incident).

Even if we double that number, that means 0.5% of mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.

To call that "rare" would be an understatement.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.

That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.

This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.
This is the 'party' line of gun advocates. That deterrence, implicit or explicit, will stop gun violence..

How do you explain the wild west of America in the 1800s where everyone had a gun (to survive) and there were daily..hourly shootings?

If there's going to be successful gun legislation, there needs to be actual gun legislation and not legislation that attempts to legislate guns and appease gun enthusiasts.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,127
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Of course, very often before it can become a mass shooting. Usually a mass shooter turns the gun on themselves the moment they encounter any armed resistance. The media doesn't report these instances, its against the narrative, but members of the GOA are notified of the stories daily. In fact American Rifleman magazine has a section for them in their monthly issues.

In fact legally speaking (US Code 10) Law Enforcement are Civilians. So technically, unless they turn the gun on themselves, ALL MASS SHOOTINGS ARE STOPPED BY CIVILIANS
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
15,856
Reaction score
8,987
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Or, we should say: They almost never do.

To wit: The article cited 10 examples, covering a period of around 10 years. Even if we accept this at face value, there were well over 3000 mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were killed by one shooter in one incident).

Even if we double that number, that means 0.5% of mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.

To call that "rare" would be an understatement.

"Almost never do" is a large step up from the commonly held position that they "never do." More to the point the author made it clear that these are cases that he is personally aware of and that there is no central authoritative source of data on mass shooting stopped by armed citizens. As such it's probably a reasonable assumption that even your 0.5% number is significantly understated.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Or, we should say: They almost never do.

To wit: The article cited 10 examples, covering a period of around 10 years. Even if we accept this at face value, there were well over 3000 mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were killed by one shooter in one incident).

Even if we double that number, that means 0.5% of mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.

To call that "rare" would be an understatement.

If a mass shooting is stopped it never occurred so the logic behind your statistics is intellectually dishonest, not to mention it was only 10 EXAMPLES not a definitive list.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
22,291
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is the 'party' line of gun advocates. That deterrence, implicit or explicit, will stop gun violence..

How do you explain the wild west of America in the 1800s where everyone had a gun (to survive) and there were daily..hourly shootings?

If there's going to be successful gun legislation, there needs to be actual gun legislation and not legislation that attempts to legislate guns and appease gun enthusiasts.

Evidence please. Oh, wait...I don't believe there were any efforts at accumulating such statistics back when the West was "Wild."

Now I actually studied the "Wild West," it was my Master's Degree minor. It really wasn't quite as "gunslinger" wild as you seem to think it was.

True, it was relatively lawless until organized into territories and Federal Judges and Marshalls were appointed. There were vast (if shrinking) swathes of land controlled by Native tribes, some towns had sheriffs or constables, there were issues with Mexico on who controlled/owned what over time, but you need to stop getting your ideas from watching cowboy-and-indian western movies.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Or, we should say: They almost never do.

To wit: The article cited 10 examples, covering a period of around 10 years. Even if we accept this at face value, there were well over 3000 mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were killed by one shooter in one incident).

Even if we double that number, that means 0.5% of mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.

To call that "rare" would be an understatement.

But that stat doesn't tell us the efficacy of a "good guy with a gun" unless it is accompanied by the stat that tells us in how many of those mass shooting situations was a good guy with a gun even present. If nobody there but the assailant had a gun, due to it being a gun free zone or just nobody there carrying, then the fact that a good guy with a gun didn't succeed in stopping it doesn't mean anything.

The overwhelming majority of people, even in places with a strong gun culture, don't carry. So even if it isn't a gun free zone, and since most mass shootings "only" involve 4-6 people, statistically it is unlikely a concealed carrier is going to be present.
 

Absentglare

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
36,073
Reaction score
6,861
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
But that stat doesn't tell us the efficacy of a "good guy with a gun" unless it is accompanied by the stat that tells us in how many of those mass shooting situations was a good guy with a gun even present. If nobody there but the assailant had a gun, due to it being a gun free zone or just nobody there carrying, then the fact that a good guy with a gun didn't succeed in stopping it doesn't mean anything.

The overwhelming majority of people, even in places with a strong gun culture, don't carry. So even if it isn't a gun free zone, and since most mass shootings "only" involve 4-6 people, statistically it is unlikely a concealed carrier is going to be present.

The question wasn't "would we be safer if there were more guns?" It was "do good guys with guns prevent mass shootings?"

Now, we'd need a time machine to actually answer the question because, if a shooter is neutralized before getting the chance to engage in a mass shooting, we don't know whether or not the shooter would have engaged in a mass shooting.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Evidence please. Oh, wait...I don't believe there were any efforts at accumulating such statistics back when the West was "Wild."

Now I actually studied the "Wild West," it was my Master's Degree minor. It really wasn't quite as "gunslinger" wild as you seem to think it was.

True, it was relatively lawless until organized into territories and Federal Judges and Marshalls were appointed. There were vast (if shrinking) swathes of land controlled by Native tribes, some towns had sheriffs or constables, there were issues with Mexico on who controlled/owned what over time, but you need to stop getting your ideas from watching cowboy-and-indian western movies.
There's this link for your perusal. De-mythologizing the Wild West: gun laws were actually stricter then than now The wild actually had stricter gun control laws than now...because of gun violence.

Then there's this link Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? Evidently, there was such gun violence in the wild west that sheriffs had guns dropped off outside the city limits and tokens issued to the gun possessor.
 
Top Bottom