Where are they?

[SaxonPig]

We talk about how most mass killers choose gun free zones for their own protection, and it appears that they do this in truth. But every once in a while a mass attack occurs where guns aren't banned and yet very, very seldom are the shooters engaged by armed citizens.

I know the number of people with carry permits is relatively low, I think usually around 5% of adults in most states, but it seems that there would be at least one armed citizen nearby during these events but either there aren't or they don't engage the shooters for some reason. I am fairly certain that if an active shooter was firing at me or people around me I would draw and shoot back. But maybe a lot of folks don't.

Any thoughts on why there aren't more cases of citizen involvement in active shooter situations?

 

[MarkCO]

There are, they just don't make press. If you are talking about the PP shooting in Colorado, I doubt many of their patrons would have CCWs. However, that area has one of the highest CCW permits/capita in the US.

 

[SEKLEM]

I always attributed it to lack of press on situations where lawfully armed citizens fight back. I haven't investigated it, but I don't doubt that's the reason why we don't hear about it, it doesn't fit the liberal media agenda. If it doesn't fit, it isn't news.

Plenty of convenience stores, gas stations, banks, and countless other businesses are robbed at gunpoint every year, and a fair share end with loss of life, and of those it is fair to assume the perpetrator is the one that loses. We don't hear about those either.

I do respect and honor my state's laws not to carry on government property. However, gun free zone or not, when I go to the movies I always carry. I also don't go to the theater on opening night through opening weekend. I avoid the crowds because large groups of people are stupid, and they're a bigger target. I'd prefer not to be a statistic.

 

[TailGator]

Another factor is that the body counts are lower. I heard about a study, but haven't found it yet, in which an Ohio law enforcement academy found that the average number of fatalities when an armed citizen is present at the beginning of an active shooter event was in the neighborhood of 2.5, while the average when waiting for LE to arrive was over 14. Higher body counts make for more dramatic news.

In addition, those figures mean that half or more of active shooter events that occur in the presence of an armed citizen don't reach the threshold for a mass casualty shooting; most LE organizations place the threshold at 3, it seems. Gun control advocates like to say that armed citizens have not been effective in stopping mass shootings, and a lot of folks don't realize that by phrasing it that way they are excluding the instances in which the armed citizen was effective. They are saying, in effect, "If you exclude the instances in which the armed citizens were effective, armed citizens were ineffective."

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While the permit number might be about 5%, the majority of permitted or licensed folks don't carry. A survey in TX found 80% did not carry.

They wanted the license for a 'car' or 'truck' gun. With the new TX laws, that might even drop the actual carrying rate.

Also, common sense says to flee, rather than seek out the shooter. So what are the odds that someone who is carrying is near the shooter.

That being said, there are a small number of successful interventions and some screw ups.

Note that many here have denied the ability of a civilian to effectively engage a shooter. See the Paris threads.

That Ohio study is interesting, though.

 

[44 AMP]

I am fairly certain that if an active shooter was firing at me or people around me I would draw and shoot back. But maybe a lot of folks don't.

A lot of folks don't, no question about it. A lot of us WON'T, unless there is absolutely no other choice. A CCW permit is NOT a Deputy's badge!

We are under no obligation (other than your own personal morals) to try and stop one of these bad guys. They have paid professionals who are trained for this kind of thing. I'm not one of them! I don't WANT to be one of them. And I especially don't want some of them shooting ME!

It is a popular fantasy, and, if its in you, by all means, be the hero. It not in me anymore, even in my fantasies. Probably because I'm old, and my dreams have faded. If there's no choice, them or me (or my loved ones, or even possibly innocents near me) then I'm going to do what I think I have to do.

If there is a possibility of exit, we'll be taking that, rather than taking the fight to the bad guy.

The reason you don't hear much about armed resistance to the mass shooting instances is that in the rare cases it does happen, it is downplayed by the popular media, UNLESS the defender spectacularly FAILS.

The Walmart shooting where an armed citizen did try to stop the bad guy, and was shot and killed by bad guy#2 (female in this case) who the armed citizen apparently did not realize was a bad guy. That FAIL was news, it fit their agenda.

The Oregon mall shooting where the bad guy was faced with a CCW holder, (who didn't fire, due to the risk to others), the bad guy, retreated, then killed himself. That wasn't big news, #1, didn't fit the media agenda, and #2, wasn't a mass shooting, because only 2 or 3 were killed, including the bad guy. sorry folks, by today's rules, has to have a body count at 4 or above to qualify as a mass shooting. Nothing to see here, move along....

The number of CCW permits in an area is misleading, if you are trying to figure out the % of people likely to be armed at a given spot and time.

A lot of CCW holders are not going about daily life armed. And those who are, are further restricted by specific locations where they cannot be legally armed.

These factors pare down the numbers available from the CCW permit "pool" by a considerable amount. Then there is the hugely important factor of random chance putting an armed person in the place of attack, at the TIME of attack.

Once / IF you get past all that, THEN you have the individual armed citizen who may, or may not "fight back".

We talk a lot about how an armed citizen in the right place and time COULD make a difference. And we are entirely right, they COULD make a difference. There have been cases where they have made a difference, some even ending the attacks. We do not say they WILL end an attack, only that they COULD.

Sure would be nice if the law encouraged that possibility, rather than the reverse.

 

[rickyrick]

There's not that high of a percentage of people with a license to carry or are allowed to carry by their state.

Then a low number of people how are legally able to carry actually do.

 

[g.willikers]

There's probably lots of reasons even an armed person doesn't interfere with an active shooting scene.
One reason might be simply a lack of training on the subject.
Without the knowhow, why would anyone jump into the situation.
Any more than try to medically interfere with a wounded victim without training for that.

 

[rickyrick]

I must add that I carry 100% of my awake hours, but it's not to stop a bank robber or anything like that. It is not a responsibility of mine. Not saying that I wouldn't help if I could.
My duty is to my family and to get home alive and go to work the next day to support them. That's the reason I carry a gun, that's the reason I stay out of public places as much as possible.

 

[manta49]

that's the reason I stay out of public places as much as possible.

Why do you stay out of public places.

 

[rickyrick]

As much as possible.

 

[5.56RifleGuy]

In the chaos of the situation, I can't imagine it would be easy to take a shot at the shooter without seriously endangering someone else.

 

[WV_gunner]

The whole idea with a civilian carrying a gun is for their protection. It's not to shoot up the bad guys. Almost no one carries a gun anyways. And if you're chances are slim of stopping the shooter, bad cover perhaps, are you going to risk your life? I think it has to deal with the specific situation. What if you're a mile away, are you gonna drive up to the shooter and engage in a gun fight? Or are hiding while the shooter is facing away from you and just feet away? Or shooting in your direction and have no choice but to shoot back?
I know if anyone tried something at the store I work at they'd be in a world of hurt, I know of atleast 5 guys that carry, at one time there was 7.

 

[DMK]

...One reason might be simply a lack of training on the subject.
Without the knowhow, why would anyone jump into the situation.
Any more than try to medically interfere with a wounded victim without training for that.

Very good point.


Something else, nobody mentioned. If you draw a gun in an active shooter situation, there is a very good chance you'll be shot by another good guy, most likely by an LEO. Even an off duty cop would not stand a good chance unless wearing some clearly recognizable part of the uniform.

Every LEO I've talked to about this situation has said the same thing. They will arrive on a chaotic scene, full of adrenaline, with a plan to take down that shooter as as quickly as possible. They will very likely shoot the first person that they see holding a gun. Training may dictate that they give that shooter an opportunity to surrender, but I would not count on that in reality. Not after they just passed kids and women with bullet holes in them.

They have all given me the same advice: You come running out and see a cop, they will ask you to show your empty hands.

 

[jonnyc]

It can also be a question of equipment. At least 90% of my carry-time is with a KelTec P32. It is a defensive weapon to help me get me and mine out of a bad situation. It is not an offensive weapon useful for approaching and engaging with an armed bad guy. If I leave my quiet, small-town environment I usually choose a bigger, more useful piece of equipment.