Screen cap by Boch via FBI.
Previous Post
Next Post

The Federal Bureau of Investigation continues to tarnish its own reputation by vastly downplaying — by a factor of more than 10 — the number of incidents in which armed Americans stop spree killers. According to the FBI, the same people who can find no evidence of crime on Hunter Biden’s laptop, only 4.4% of these incidents were stopped by a good guy “civilian” with a gun. Analysis by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows the actual number is closer to 50% or more in some instances.

Not only that, but with each passing year, the numbers of spree killings cut short by everyday Americans carrying firearms continues to steadily grow. That shouldn’t surprise anyone as more and more Americans get concealed carry licenses, to say nothing of the half of the nation now living under constitutional carry laws where good guys don’t need a permission slip to carry.

What’s more, in non-“gun-free” zones where good guys aren’t prohibited from carrying lawfully, the number of mass murders interrupted is over 50%.

Image by Boch. Base image by Crime Prevention Research Center.

The CPRC, John Lott’s group, took the time to do the research and what they found is truly appalling. Example: the FBI claimed the would-be murder spree in a White Settlement, Texas church wasn’t stopped by a civilian good guy. Instead, the FBI massaged that case and sorted it as a “security guard” stopping the attack.

How did the Fibbies’ galaxy brains steer that away from a “good guy with a gun” description? They claimed that because Jack Wilson volunteered as church security, he was a “security guard.”

You be the judge. Was that Mr. Wackenhut or Ms. Securitas who took down this killer, or was it an everyday good guy with a gun?

Then again, this is the same FBI that took weeks to determine that the San Bernardino mass killers were jihadists. Ditto for the Pulse Nightclub killer.

The Crime Prevention Research Center has the details . . .

The shooting that killed three people and injured another at a Greenwood, Indiana, mall on July 17 drew broad national attention because of how it ended – when 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, carrying a licensed handgun, fatally shot the attacker.

While Dicken was praised for his courage and skill – squeezing off his first shot 15 seconds after the attack began, from a distance of 40 yards – much of the immediate news coverage drew from FBI-approved statistics to assert that armed citizens almost never stop such attackers: “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander” (Associated Press); “Rampage in Indiana a rare instance of armed civilian ending mass shooting” (Washington Post); and “After Indiana mall shooting, one hero but no lasting solution to gun violence” (New York Times).

Evidence compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives. Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.

The FBI reports that armed citizens only stopped 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021. The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. But it does not include those it deems related to other criminal activity, such as a robbery or fighting over drug turf.

An analysis by my organization identified a total of 360 active shooter incidents during that period and found that an armed citizen stopped 124. A previous report looked at only instances when armed civilians stopped what likely would have been mass public shootings. There were another 24 cases that we didn’t include where armed civilians stopped armed attacks, but the suspect didn’t fire his gun. Those cases are excluded from our calculations, though it could be argued that a civilian also stopped what likely could have been an active shooting event.

The FBI reported that armed citizens thwarted 4.4% of active shooter incidents, while the CPRC found 34.4%.

As usual with John Lott’s research, there’s a ton of details and background information at the link.  Go read it.

Two factors explain this discrepancy – one, misclassified shootings; and two, overlooked incidents. Regarding the former, the CPRC determined that the FBI reports had misclassified five shootings: In two incidents, the Bureau notes in its detailed write-up that citizens possessing valid firearms permits confronted the shooters and caused them to flee the scene. However, the FBI did not list these cases as being stopped by armed citizens because police later apprehended the attackers. In two other incidents, the FBI misidentified armed civilians as armed security personnel. Finally, the FBI failed to mention citizen engagement in one incident.

For example, the Bureau’s report about the Dec. 29, 2019 attack on the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, that left two men dead does not list this as an incident of “civic engagement.” Instead, the FBI lists this attack as being stopped by a security guard. A parishioner, who had volunteered to provide security during worship, fatally shot the perpetrator. That man, Jack Wilson, told Dr. John Lott that he was not a security professional. He said that 19 to 20 members of the congregation were armed that day, and they didn’t even keep track of who was carrying a concealed weapon.

As for the second factor — overlooked cases — the FBI, more significantly, missed 25 incidents identified by CPRC where what would likely have been a mass public shooting was thwarted by armed civilians. There were another 83 active shooting incidents that they missed.

It’s almost as if the Biden administration and Merrick Garland’s FBI have been working hard to smother the facts showing that good guys with guns do indeed stop bad people with evil in their hearts.

And that’s despite the fact that most of these shootings intentionally occur in “gun-free” zones, where only the good guys are disarmed and the bad guys know they’ll find defenseless victims. Because of this, we, as the armed citizenry, have one hand tied behind our back when it comes to these statistics. Even without the .gov’s stats massaging trickery.

Americans aren’t stupid though.


Previous Post
Next Post


    • Yeah–I want to believe that we’re better than that…but then I see more examples of the opposite than I care to admit. Minor and Dacian certainly seem to spout ignorance at the rapid rate.

    • Dude,

      “Millions willingly voted for a senile puppet.”

      Yep, that’s the claim. Say, are you interested in real estate?? Say, some great beachfront property in Arizona?? Have I got a deal for you!

    • Then allow a corrupt demtard party to fix the count and to install a nasty senile idiot POS puppet.

      FJB has only been senile for a few years. Alway has been a nasty, idiot POS.

      • Not true, Debbie W.

        That statistic has been thoroughly debunked. Racial representation among serial killers is much closer to actual population distribution than are, for example, general murder statistics, but . . . PLENTY of black, Latino, Asian, etc. serial killers. Don’t buy the hype.

    • @Peter

      aside from the obvious trolling…

      “And blacks are now more than 60% of murder perpetrators. 12% does 60%.”

      That’s not correct.

      Black murder perpetrators commit murder at 3 times the rate of whites. But Blacks are 13 % of the population and commit over 60% of overall crime.

      Blacks do not commit more than 60% of murders.

  1. “Analysis by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows the actual number is closer to 50% or more in some instances.”

    Its about time they published. Been sitting on this for a while.

  2. Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

    Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

    Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

    I might add any references to John Lott are laughable as his research has been debunked as faulty by numerous studies.

    • Once again dacian brings out the debunked nih study, by two of its own authors. And once again dacian needs to learn the meaning of context, the nih study is not about active shooters in mass shootings and this study from CPRC is about active shooters in mass shootings.

    • Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
      Charles C. Branas, PhD, Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, […], and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD

      Would be nice if these 🤡s worried less about guns and more about reducing medical malpractice. That kills FAR MORE people.
      Why not link those stats lil’dtard.

      Also, these 🤡s DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY DON’T KNOW.
      That being the incredible increase of traumatic injury patients from vicious assaults should firearms be severely restricted or banned.

      Just look at the leftarded run cities for an example you idiot.

    • The parts that spike my interest:
      We “adjusted” odds ratios for confounding variables.
      “After adjustment”

      So after adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot. Meaningless!

      • “So after adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot. Meaningless!"

        The study is full of "adjustments" and meaningless things. Like, for example, leaving out that of the "677 case participants that had been shot in an assault" that more then 75% had not actually been shot but rather shot at and mostly it wasn't shooting at them but rather others and these "participants" just happen to have been very close and because of their proximity were included as 'victims of the assault' in the police reports. The study counts these as being shot because they were included in the police reports for the assault when in reality they were not shot.

        The data was presented in a manner to substantiate a pre-formed conclusion.

        In reality, and has been substantiated by further research (not only John Lotts research), a person armed with a firearm is… Kleck actually said it best…

        According to Kleck’s “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” – the leading authority on the subject of compliance and referenced by the DOJ:

        1. Any form of resistance, except with firearm, carries with it an injury rate of 52%.

        2. Resistance with a firearm carried with it the risk of injury of 17%, but use of a firearm early in an encounter carries with it a risk of injury of 6%.

        Overall, in Kleck, you have a minimum of a 25% chance of being injured if you comply, but you are 4 time less likely to be injured if you have your firearm and are prepared to use it.

        Take away here summary: compliance may still result in injury (which includes death), resistance without a firearm carries a 52% chance of injury (which includes death), resistance with a firearm lowers chance of injury (which includes death) to 17%, resistance with a firearm early in the encounter further lowers risk of injury (which includes death) to 6%

        If you are armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 25%?
        if you are not armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 52%?

        Compliance or not, resistance or not – is not a decision one needs to make. The answer is already provided, non-compliance via firearms resistance offers the best chance of less injury. But if you want, you can roll the dice and take the chance of being a good-n-dead witness.

        • Booger Brain

          In reality any sane person knows that when you are robbed you do not know its coming. The Criminal has a gun already drawn on you and for you to then try and draw your gun is usually a certainty you will be shot before your gun is even out of the holster.

          A widely cited 1984 study by the University of Chicago found that while only seven percent of armed robbery victims resisted against their attackers, those seven percent accounted for 51 percent of all deaths resulting from armed robberies according to The New York Times.

          Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no
          Conflicting statistics about guns—such as how many people in the U.S. use guns for self-defense each year, and whether or not the crime rate is tied to how many people own guns—was the subject of a recent podcast featuring David Hemenway, professor of health policy at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

          Hemenway, an expert on the public health impact of gun violence and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, was interviewed on Science Vs, a podcast that looks at fads, trends, and opinions to uncover what’s actually true.

          Hemenway noted that one commonly cited statistic about guns—that 2.5 million people use them each year to defend themselves or their property — is based on faulty analysis from a 1990s study. A more reliable source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey, pegs the number of people who use guns in this manner at roughly 100,000, according to Science Vs podcast host Wendy Zukerman. Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, “but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.

          Addressing gun lobby assertions that crime is deterred when more law-abiding citizens carry guns, Hemenway said the evidence says otherwise. He said that even though more and more Americans are carrying concealed guns each year—the result of more states passing ‘right-to-carry’ laws—research has not uncovered a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the prevalence of guns and the U.S. crime rate. However, he noted, the presence of more guns does make crimes more violent. “What guns do is make hostile interactions—robberies, assaults—much more deadly,” he said.

        • “Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no”

          That all depends upon who your “scientist” happens to be.

          Like the “science” behind the WuFlu debacle, where a person expiring “With Covid” is falsely lumped in with those dying “From Covid”, the actual American citizenry can see for themselves the affects of intentional Blue State/City policies that suppor and encourage the criminal element at the expense of The People.

          It’s not like the NRA, or FPC, or some pro-gun org actually went out and advertised that people who never, in the past, should go out and purchase a firearm for their own protection. The current events in the very areas in which they worked, commuted, and were forced to live before they could sell out and leave dictated that.

          To deny any attempt to secure one’s own safety borders on insanity, regardless of the “scientist”, who, BTW, most likely lives in some gated, armed security-protected burg.

      • I doubt that this adjustment is really the issue. Once completed the adjustment yields 4.46x for those carrying a gun but 5.45x for overall resistance against a gun.

        Which means that carrying a gun while resisting an assault with a gun was 18.2% less likely to get you shot than resisting without a gun.

        The overall methodology here is total shit.

        The first big issue here is “We assumed that the resident population of Philadelphia risked being shot in an assault at any location and at any time of day or night.”.

        That makes no sense to assume. Someone is at equal risk while at the office as while in the middle of a drug deal? Oh, but because bullets can pass through certain objects the guy on the 20th floor of a building is somehow in the same danger as someone caught in a driveby. LOL!

        Then, if you care to look further, their pair-matching for control is… uh, it’s a head scratcher. Your control is a rando person you called within the city who reported being in the city the same day as the person who was shot that you’re trying to match a control to… wut? (“Control participants were sampled from all of Philadelphia via random-digit dialing.”)

        How the actual fuck does that line up with the “Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument or 1-sided attacks where a victim was face-to-face with an offender who had targeted him or her for money, drugs, or property”?

        Some rando person in some part of a municipality is just assigned as your control because they took a phone call and told you some things over the phone? LULZ, you did this is an intro college stats course and you’d get an F for your methods.

        Then on top of that, some of the non-control people were killed in the assault. So how do you know what really happened? You don’t.

        I’m not gonna tear the rest of this apart, but basically the only thing they found that makes total sense is that people who handle a lot of cash were more likely to get shot if they were robbed by someone with a gun and resisted. That’s hardly shocking since they’re already victims of an armed robbery attempt by definition.

        Study’s total trash. The author’s should be proud of their statistical manipulation and mathematics skills and ashamed of their methodology.

        This was some social scientists with a stats calculator who wanted to show off (and justify whatever went into making/buying that calculator).

  3. When help is immediately needed, the police are only 5….10….15…20 minutes away.

    But don’t worry, the guvmint will keep you nice and safe.

  4. The stats show armed citizens are not going to bow down to criminals. Unfortunately an alive and well perp is who bureaucrats need to grease the wheels of the criminal justice system. When a citizen smokes a perp legitimately disgruntled bureaucrats sit around like the Maytag man and that’s bad for business.

    • IIRC that’s the shooter that Eli Dicken dropped with 8/10 on target at ~40 yards.

      Dickbag McGirk scuttled off to a bathroom and shuffled off his mortal coil after the experience.

  5. I repost this every time the subject comes up.

    Read or skim this article. Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously. One begins to suspect there’s a reason Mother Jones and the police ignore shootings with fewer than 4 victims.

    I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data.
    The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
    The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

    The way to stop school shootings is simple:

    * Get rid of gun-free zones.

    * Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn’t matter.

    Making carry mandatory isn’t necessary, as shown by the statistics above, and it offends my sense of liberty, reduces the employment pool, and many people are not very good with guns.

    Another bit of related research:

  6. how to tell if something is a lie:
    if the left is saying it
    the left hasnt been correct
    or told the truth about anything
    since trump came down the escalator
    in 2015

    • awake,

      Oh, WWWAAAAYYYYYYYY longer than that. I think we could easily go back to the late ’30s and Roosevelt’s “New Deal”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here