Trying to find a gun study from a while back on mass shootings...

[bcreps85]

A while back, I believe after the VA Tech shooting, I read a study someone had done on the effects of having lawfully armed citizens on location during the shootings. After researching shootings without armed citizens and comparing those to shootings that were actually stopped by armed citizens, it came to the conclusion that having armed citizens around significantly reduces the fatalities incurred. I'm in a debate right now with someone and would really like to use this to help make my case...

Anybody have any idea where I can find a link to this? It's hard to search for anything like this right now because all it seems to come up with is news story of the recent events...

Thanks in advance!

 

[hazek]

Here's a few examples: http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/2010/10/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners/

Found another interesting story: http://christopherdiarmani.com/5974/concealed-carry/mass-shooting-common-denominator-gunfree-zone/

 

[bunklocoempire]

A while back, I believe after the VA Tech shooting, I read a study someone had done on the effects of having lawfully armed citizens on location during the shootings. After researching shootings without armed citizens and comparing those to shootings that were actually stopped by armed citizens, it came to the conclusion that having armed citizens around significantly reduces the fatalities incurred. I'm in a debate right now with someone and would really like to use this to help make my case...

Anybody have any idea where I can find a link to this? It's hard to search for anything like this right now because all it seems to come up with is news story of the recent events...

Thanks in advance!

No sources for that, sorry.

Make it personal.

Be sure to ask the person you're debating if they were armed and stuck in the area with the attacker, would they have tried to stop the attack themselves? And why or why not?

I think that is what it all comes down to.

Some folks will act to save themselves and/or others, and some folks refuse to help themselves/others directly. Why would we not allow someone who wants to protect themselves to protect themselves?

Powerful on many levels:


Good luck!

 

[bcreps85]

Thanks guys, appreciate the articles and video. Not exactly what I was working for, but amongst the case I made still. Truthfully, I didn't even have to do a ton...we have a lot of the same FB friends and the rest of them jumped into the debate lol.

 

[brushfire]

Its likely in the gunfacts footnotes. Look up the statistic and read what he's cited: http://gunfacts.info/

 

[Pericles]

Thanks guys, appreciate the articles and video. Not exactly what I was working for, but amongst the case I made still. Truthfully, I didn't even have to do a ton...we have a lot of the same FB friends and the rest of them jumped into the debate lol.

This might be interesting: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp39ch.html

Think about it - how do you quantify a successful defense. Take the case of an attack on a school in Israel where it is stopped by an armed teacher and the terrorist is dead. The statistic is a one dead deal, not recognized in every case (this is an easy one) as a prevented mass killing. Kook kills someone and is taken down, so case closed because we have no way of knowing how many more (if any) people the kook would have killed if not stopped when he was.

 

[oyarde]

All the worst are going to be in gun free zones, schools etc , committed by early twenties males , deranged , pussies, pick these spots because they will not get smoked , effing scum. Figure , about 1 in a 100 million.