Air Force: Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shootings

Andrew Wurst (courtesy

Fifty years ago, the idea that armed people could not stop a mass killing would have been laughable. Throughout the past, as it is now, armed defense is the best protection against being slaughtered or enslaved en masse. If you were not armed, organized and pro-active, you ended up dead or someone else’s slave. In much of the world, including historical times, you were eaten. The claim that being unarmed makes a person “safe” is recent and wrong. As the United States Air Force has now acknowledged. From . . .

The Air Force on Wednesday said its review of “active-shooter incidents across the country” found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter . . .

 The Air Force also did not release the data showing how many active-shooter incidents were stopped by someone on the scene carrying a weapon. A spokeswoman said the data came from the FBI, and cannot be released by the Air Force.

I don’t know what data the Air Force or the FBI used to make such a pronouncement. In my post Mass Killings Stopped by Armed CitizensI’ve listed 21 public sources, haphazardly obtained over the Internet for a few years. (Including the Parker Middle School incident, shooter above). That’s certainly enough to qualify for the “many” label.

All militaries are based on the idea of armed protection. Republics have always relied on armed citizens. I applaud the Air Force for stating a politically incorrect fact. I hope they will give it more than lip service. Maybe in the next administration.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


  1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Any news on what happened to the CO, Tim White, in Chattanooga that used is own firearm? I heard “he won’t be charged” but that doesn’t mean his career isn’t over. Has anyone with more knowledge heard anything?

    1. avatar Missouri Mule says:

      I have a Google News search set up on him and so far it appears he is alright. He is till in the Navy and recently spoke at a service honoring his fallen comrades purple Heart Ceremony. His wife is an internet media expert, blogger, author devout Christian and made it clear she would defend her husband to the ends of the earth early on. Promotions and assignments remain a question.

  2. avatar Ben says:

    Besides stating the obvious to those guided by logic, this will hopefully help lead to a US military whose members at least get to carry thier sidearm around base. I know an armed military is such an odd concept to lefties, but it needs to be not just in war zones.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      The [US] military does not permanently issue weapons, so that they can “take them back”. If not, the military just becomes a militia at-will.

      That does not, however, preclude the military to allow members to carry their own (maybe preferably “concealed” to promote “uniformity” and identification of forces). This would/may however, also make it more difficult to deploy such forces.

      1. avatar Anthony says:

        I work security. All the officers report to the armory at the beginning of the shift to get their gear, and turn it in at the end of shift. Why couldn’t the military do the same?

  3. avatar george from fort worth says:

    good news it is. will be really great when retirees and dependents with permits can do the same.

  4. avatar pwrserge says:

    The only thing that bothers me about the comments section is the delusion that Staff NCOs and Officers are somehow better than regular enlisted and NCOs.

    1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      “the delusion that Staff NCOs and Officers are somehow better than regular enlisted and NCOs.”

      Hasn’t that been the case with pretty much any military on earth…ever?

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Not better individually, perhaps. I had some pretty obnoxious NCOs and officers to deal with during my time in the service, but certainly better trained and disciplined. On top of that is the consideration that they probably have more invested in the military as a career and would be less likely to jeopardize that by foolish actions.

        As with any rank or privilege the ability to carry a loaded sidearm on base should be awarded after the chain of command determines the individual is worthy of the trust. IMO this should mean at a minimum the promotion to the rank of E4 (Corporal or Specialist 4) for enlisted and Lieutenant for officers.

        Since every person in the military has voluntarily placed themselves under the UCMJ and agreed that during their term of service some Constitutional protections are surrendered, this does not violate the Second Amendment protections. There do remain some questions of the right to self defense. These would seem to be best addressed by the military organizations individually, not by civilian edict.

        1. avatar MurrDog says:

          Someone’s not worthy of trust until they’re at least an E-4? Then why have the E-3’s done the brunt of the fighting and taken the lions share of the casualties?

        2. avatar SickOfTwoFacedBullshit says:


          A lot of these guys would be allowed to carry outside in the real world.

          A magic line in the ground or a chainlink fence somehow makes them less capable?

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          Cliff, what part of “shall not be infringed” does not apply to the military?

  5. avatar Ben B says:

    Well, it seems that Dyess AFB in Texas is getting with the program. At least concealed carry holders don’t have to disarm at home before going to work, as is the case with practically every other federal military base…

  6. avatar Forrest says:

    Mass shootings are stopped by A-10’s too, but you don’t see the Air Force trying to keep those things around…

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Is that supposed to be a serious argument against on-based carry, or is it just a comment on the lack of wisdom in allowing the A-10 to be phased out?

      1. avatar Bourbon guzzler says:

        That’s not an A-10 in my pocket; I’m just happy to see you.

    2. avatar Joe American says:

      The Air Force and the Marine Corps have been trying hard to keep this aircraft alive, as it is the best at what it does, namely, close air support.

  7. avatar Rokurota says:

    Fairchild Air Force Base shooting:

    Since the NY Times saw fit only to name the killer and not the armed defender, I’ll have to do it. Senior Airman Andy Brown killed Mellberg from approx. 70 yards away with an M9. Pres. Clinton gave him a medal.

    9mm handgun vs AK? Yes.

  8. avatar Spectre_USA says:

    Tales of the Warthog’s demise have been exaggerated, and they will be extended.

    As to the armed on base, I wish I had been able to carry during my 14 fun-filled years in the USAF.

    I was a weapons troop, aka load-toad, and one of my beasts was the A-10. Set a world record
    on an ICT, but that’s a whole other story.

    Good on my beloved USAF!

  9. avatar Hannibal says:

    Recently the heads of multiple federal agencies (FBI, ATF as well I believe) have come out with opinions about the ‘Ferguson Effect’ and crime rates that were very unpopular with the current administration. Now we have federal agencies \ entities bucking the liberals’ echo chamber about guns and self-defense. Things may be looking up.

    Or maybe they see the writing on the wall for 2016?

    1. avatar MurrDog says:

      The writing on the wall being “Get on the right side of history or find yourself in for a rude wakeup.” ?

  10. avatar Mike says:

    And the person that published that study has now been fired, or will be tommorow. Just as soon as Obama get their name.

  11. avatar SurfGW says:

    In the Chattanooga shooting, the response was delayed by the armed servicemember because responders had to sort out the bad guy from defenders. Uniformed armed personnel could have a grudge against their command. Personnel in civilian clothes with weapons further complicate things. No way any command wants to be blamed for delaying response by having a policy that allows carry. Not one commander will allow carry especially with the likelihood of NDs.

    1. avatar Ben B says:

      And if someone had a grudge and guns are NOT allowed, then obviously, they can’t possibly bring them on post to do someone harm… Obviously. That would be against the rules. And THAT is why gun free zone signs work so very well. And For Hood I and II never happened, the Navy Yard, and on it goes. Oh, and that WAS sarcasm…

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        Point taken but understand a commanders risk calculation:
        – ND. Happen a few times a year on bigger bases and people are often relieved. (Look up Col Margolin at Quantico for example)
        – Workplace violence. More rare, but still have many cases, most of which don’t make the news. If no one can carry, it makes identifying the danger easy for responders and commanders have something else to charge violators with
        – Terrorist attacks. Extremely rare. Mostly handled through guard plans and roving guards armed with rifles and radios. The box is already checked, why add the risks associated with carry?

        1. avatar Ben B says:

          The commanders will always take the political way out, and ban them. Except for Dyess AFB in Texas. Their policy is all I’m asking for. It’d be nice to be able to leave my gun in my vehicle while I’m at work, instead of being disarmed from the time I leave my house to the time I get home from work. I’m sure they’ll have a slew of workplace violence incidents by license holders, now that they’re allowed to keep their guns in their vehicles.

          Terrorist attacks handled through guard plans and roving guards armed with rifles and radios? Where is that? No place that I’ve seen…

          Those talking points sound like a great plan for civilian disarmament…

        2. avatar Surly Old NCO says:

          Spoken like an O-4 hoping his ass-tonguing skills will get his name on the list for LTC. SurfGW demonstrates that the “shit rises to the top” problems of the peacetime Army are back already.

        3. avatar Sam I am says:

          His was not a defense, but an explanation of how career trumps principle.

  12. avatar SurfGW says:

    Unless terrorist attacks are as common as ND’s, no commander will allow carry

    1. avatar HamChuck says:

      Probably. Which only enforces my belief that most commanders at the Brigade level and above care only for their careers and nothing for the troops that serve under them. 10 years in the army, 6 as a 19k showed me that.

    2. avatar george from fort worth says:

      commanders don’t become commanders by taking risks. george patton is the shinning example of what happens to risk takers when politics again become the coin of the realm.

  13. avatar Martin B says:

    If you think that the prospect of being eaten by an enemy was a distant memory from a bygone, prehistoric era, let me disabuse you of this. As late as the 1860s, rebel Maori groups indulged in ritual cannibalism of slain enemies. In earlier times, armed raiding parties of Maori warriors would tie slaves together, and use them for food on their journeys to other territories. There was an excellent reason that New Zealand was the last Pacific nation to be colonized. Not until widespread trading leading up to the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, did European settlement begin en masse. I am not aware of Maori dining on American tourists, so you should be safe coming here. Just don’t piss them off.

    1. avatar Craig says:

      Some New Guinea tribes were indulging in cannibalism of slain enemies as late as the 1960s.

    2. Cannibalism is still being practiced in parts of Africa.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email