Legally Armed Citizens Don't Stop Mass Shootings.......... Except For All The Times They Do.

Facebook Page
Website

Every time the discussion turns to ending gun free zones and allowing qualified people to defend themselves and others, the gun control crowd comes up with garbage like this:

An Armed Citizen Has Never Stopped A Mass Shooting!
Who Do You Think You Are - John Wayne?
Grow Up!

The only thing wrong with that statement is that it is completely false.  It's also insulting.  I learned a long time ago that when people resort to insults, it's because they have no facts.  That is definitely the case here, because in spite of the fact that most of these horrible incident happen where guns are banned, armed citizens have indeed stopped mass shootings.  I am going to provide you with a few examples.

Please note: The gun control crowd will claim that these are not mass shootings because the active shooter was stopped before they could shoot four people.  Yes, that's right, they don't look at the intent.  So, since when citizens stop mass shootings, by any means, the number of victims is almost always less than four.  I leave it to you to decide if these active shooters would have shot more than four people if they had not been stopped.

Chicago Uber Driver Stops Man Shooting At Crowd

This Uber driver was in the right place at the right time to stop a man who opened fire on a crowd.  The  CCW license holder fired six well aimed shots, hitting only the assailant and likely preventing a bloodbath.

It should be noted that Uber responded to this man stepping up and saving lives by banning their drivers - who are independent contractors - from carrying firearms, even if they are licensed to do so.  In fact, they even prohibited passengers from lawfully carrying firearms.  Please consider this before patronizing.

Man Stops Active Shooter In Bar

When an assailant entered a restaurant and bar armed with two handguns and began shooting at people, a patron who is licensed to carry shot the would be murderer dead, limiting cauaities to one person wounded and the active shooter dead.  Arlington TX police officials stated that they have no doubt that this man prevented a "bloodbath".

Doctor 'Saved Lives' By Shooting Hospital Gunman

A Pennsylvania doctor, who was carrying a firearm in violation of hospital policy, "without a doubt" stopped a mass shooting and saved many lives according to the Chief of Police.  When a mental patient carried a gun into the hospital's gun free zone and shot the doctor, then shot and killed a case worker, the doctor drew his own firearm and returned fire, seriously wounding the would be mass shooter.  The hospital did not discipline the doctor for his policy violation.

Everyone should consider this: If this doctor had respected the hospital's gun free zone, as most would have, many more people would be dead.  This is not my opinion - it is the opinion of the chief of the investigating department.

Oregon Mall Shooting Stopped By Licensed Gun Carrier

Here we have a classic case of someone stopping a mass shooting without firing a shot - and then having anti-gun zealots, who have not spent the hours I have studying public mass shootings, call him a liar.  In this case the active shooter enter a mall and began shooting people with a stolen AR15.  He shot and killed two before entering the area where Nick Meli, a man licensed to carry, who chose to ignore the mall's "gun free zone" had taken cover with his girlfriend and her children.  The shooter's AR15 jammed.  Meli leveled his Glock at the active shooter and was ready to take the shot when he saw people behind the shooter who could be hit if he should miss.  He held his fire.

However the active shooter, having finished clearing the jam, looked up and saw Meli pointing his firearm at him.  His response was to run away to a secluded location and turn the gun on himself.  Having studied as many of these incidents as I can find, this action was predictable.  These sick people plan these incidents - and their plan always includes how they want it to end.  The arrival of the first armed opposition always triggers their end game plan.  Why is this?  Simple: Armed opposition threatens their control of the outcome.

Don't believe me?  Fine, do your own homework.  Most of the time, when armed opposition arrives, they commit suicide.  In a minority of cases, they surrender.  In an even smaller number of cases, they shoot it out until they are killed or incapacitated.  This incident played out in exactly the same was as Newtown - except the mass murder did not have as much time to keep on killing people.  Nothing else explains the shooters actions - and that is why I believe Nick Meli.

Active Shooter Shot, Killed Inside West Philly Barbershop
(God's Timing?)

In this incident, a man became agitated inside a barber shop.  One of the barbers tried to calm him down - but he responded by pulling a gun and sparying the barber shop with bullets.  At that exact moment, a citizen with a carry permit just happened to be walking by.  He was able to draw his handgun and shoot the active shooter in the chest.  He did not survive.  Police say the CCW permits holder's actions "saved a lot of lives".

Jeanne Assam At New Life Church

Dec. 9, 2007 - Jeanne Assam, a volunteer church security team member, carrying a pistol by virtue of a CCW permit, stopped a heavily armed active shooter who was attempting to gain access to the Sanctuary, where several hundred people were present.  He had killed several people at a Christian retreat center the night before.  Had she not been there, or had not been armed, the death toll would have been much higher - perhaps higher than the 57 killed in the recent Las Vegas shooting.

Sutherland Springs Texas Church Shooting

Since the initial report below, more information has come to light.  First, we now know that several church members did indeed have carry permits.  Unfortunately, there was a tradition, which the mass murderer may have known about: Church members left their guns in their cars - which meant no one in the church was armed.  Second, contrary to rumors and speculation, the mass murderer WAS NOT done killing when armed citizen Stephen Willeford approached the church, armed with his own AR15.  In fact, multiple witnesses have confirmed that the murderer was using a pistol to shoot those who were still alive in their heads.  When he heard Willeford, he exited the church to confront him.

Willeford was able to shoot and severely wound the shooter, in spite of his wearing body armor, because he was armed with an AR15.  This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of Stephen Willeford who said that had he been armed with a handgun, he was not confident that he could have prevailed.  After the shooter fled the scene, he was chased by Willeford and another citizen, until he crashed some distance away.  It should be noted that when CNN described this mass murder, as part of their "25 worst shootings" story, they carefully worded their account to complete eliminate any mention of Willeford's actions.  This shows just how badly the mainstream media wants us to forget this "good guy with a gun".

So, Why Have There Not Been More?

The answer is clear: These mass murderers carefully choose to attack targets in so called "gun free zones".  In fact, in two of the seven incidents above, the licensed person had a firearm (and the ability to save lives) because they ignored signs intended to disarm them.  These signs, that disarm law abiding, screened and trained people, but do not stop evil people who wish to murder as many people as possible. In fact, there is ample evidence that such signs actually attract killers.

I recently took the time to research and analyze the incidents in the CNN story mentioned above.  Including ties, they list the 32 worst mass shootings in American history.  The most common factor linking all of them?  They took place in so called gun free zones.  I was able to establish beyond any doubt that 61% took place in these defense free zones.  I was able to establish that another 27% of the locations were likely "gun free".  That totals 88%!  NEARLY 9 OUT OF 10 OF THESE WORST MASS SHOOTINGS IN AMERICAN HISTORY TOOK PLACE IN SO CALLED "GUN FREE" ZONES.  In fact, in one of the cases mentioned, surveillance revealed that the mass murder walked into the mall and searched until he found a sign prohibiting firearms.  Only then did he go to his car, only to return with his weapon. 

But XYZ gun control group says that most mass shootings don't often happen in gun free zones.  Who is right?  

If we are talking about public mass shootings, I am correct.  If all you look at is the FBI definition of a mass shooting (4 or more people shot) - then gun control groups are correct.  It is important to know how they reach this conclusion.  They do this by mixing dissimilar data sets.  There are three basic categories of mass shootings: Criminally motivated, domestic and public.  These have different causes and different targets.  For example, most criminally motivated mass shootings are aimed at rival gangs - and they are the result of gang warfare.  While members of the general public are occasionally killed, they are not the target.  In domestic mass shootings, as in all domestic murders, the targets are within the family,   In the case of the worst mass shootings, the desire is to kill members of the general public or a large group within the public.  As you can see, these kinds of murders are very different.  Gun free zones are not a major factor in criminal or domestic mass shootings, but they are a huge factor in public mass shootings.

If Gun Free Zones Attract Mass Murderers - Why Do We Have Them?

They answer to that question is simple: We have gun free zones because anti-gun rights zealots want them.  This naturally leads to the question: Why do they want them?  

I think that there are likely a variety of reasons why people support these failed and phony "gun free zones":

First and foremost, what unites all supporters is a fear and hatred of firearms.  In their minds, it is not the person who is evil, it is the object, the firearm.  They never see firearms as being safe - no matter whose hands they are in.   We see this when both on and off duty police officers are told that if they wish to enter a restaurant they must leave their guns behind.  We also see this when gun rights opponents say that these useless gun free zones make them "feel safe" - no matter if they actually place them in greater danger.  Of course, we also see this in their fear of anyone carrying a gun, not matter how well, screened, trained or experienced they may be.  Finally, it is seen in their total focus upon restricting firearms as a means to decrease homicides.  People are never the problem - guns are always the problem - hence making an area into a "gun free zone" should end the killing, right?
In contrast, looking at politicians, celebrities and billionaires - all of whom are protected by armed security, usually dozens of them - they simply consider their lives as being worthy of greater protection than the single mother in Chicago, or a veteran in Colorado, or school kids in Florida.  If guns are such a bad thing, if they are worthless for self-defense, than why don't they do away with their armed security?  Answer: The know it works and they think they deserve it because they are more important than the rest of us.

Finally, there are gun control advocates who know full well that people licensed to carry create a benefit that far exceeds any risk.  However, they simply cannot allow citizens to accomplish good things with firearms.  After all, out of 42 states that passed citizen carry without being forced by the courts to do so, exactly none have repealed their laws.  It's real hard to do that when ordinary people are seen on the local news defending themselves and others.  Good people using firearms to defend themselves and others gets in the way of the ultimate goal: A total ban of handguns and a ban of most long guns - therefore they must be prevented from doing so.

Add to these fact the fact that the national media is in two of the seven remaining states that have not yet recognized the right of law abiding people who pass the background check and training to be given a permit - and it is easy to see why the bulk of people in CA, NY, HI, CT, MA, NJ, and RI simply do not know anything about the benefits of citizen concealed carry.
So, those are the facts.  lawfully armed citizens DO STOP MASS SHOOTINGS - largely by being in the right place at the right time.  Indeed they could save more lives were it not for the folly of so called "gun free" zones.