TXAZ, I don't know of any such research and even if their was, it would have some largely obvious problems with data validity unless the study only included those incidents where either A) it was an actual mass shooting (pick which definition of mass shooting you want to define this) and/or B) the shooter gave some sort of statement (note left before the incident or interview afterwards) stating an intent to conduct a mass shooting.
The problem with mass shooting definitions is that is that they tend to be exclusionary. You said "mass shooting." By an older FBI definition, that is 4 or more people shot other than the bad guy(s). This did not include a lot of conditional attachments such as definitions being imposed now.
You did not say "public mass shooting" which by definitions today may be 3 or more people shot (other than bad guy), 3 or more, or 4 or more people KILLED other than the bad guy(s). These must be in "public" but will not count as a mass shooting if it includes being things like a drive-by shooting, some how related to being gang activity, if associated with another crime such as a robbery, or if it happens on private property, specifically in non-business private property such as a home. Let's say you are at a party at your friend's house when somebody shows up and starting shooting up the party goers and you put down the gunman after he has killed 4 people and wounded 5 more with gunshots. You didn't stop a mass shooting because the shooting occurred in somebody's home.
Probably the two most common types of mass shootings are drive-by mass shootings and private mass shootings and of private mass shootings, the most common type is familicide. In the grand scheme, you and I aren't nearly as likely to be in a public mass shooting as we are in a private mass shooting. Many (most) private mass shootings are not covered by the national media and while we don't hear as much about them, they actually occur fairly frequently compared to public mass shootings. The same for drive-by mass shootings.
Quote:
|
In every case I've heard of a mass shooting had a low body count when someone was armed and resisting.
|
Actually, there are a goodly of school mass shootings where there was nobody armed and resisting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States
If you use the extremist Mother Jones definition of a mass shooting that has to be public and have 3 or more people killed, there are several.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...nes-full-data/
For example, this guy went into his former workplace, target specific individuals and killed them. He specifically did not shoot other people such as a new employee that came in during the shooting and he ordered her out at gun point and did not shoot her. Once he accomplished what he wanted to do, he committed suicide.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...605-story.html
Or there was this guy what walked into a Wal-Mart in Thornton, CO and began firing, killing 3 people, and then he left. No good guy with a gun resisted.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-shoot...ry?id=50874739
I could go on and find numerous other incidents, I think I have made my point. There are plenty of low injury/body count mass shootings that stop for reasons other than there being somebody there who is armed and resisting.