The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 14, 2020, 08:56 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,865
Any research on bad guys attacking CHL'ers vs unarmed citizens?

Are you guys aware of any research that shows the difference in outcomes when an active shooter encounters lawfully concealed carrying citizens (vs. not)?

Effectively an update to John R. Lott’s 20+ year old More Guns, Less Crime but looking more at the mass shootings / attempts.
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old January 15, 2020, 05:03 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2001
Posts: 7,259
I haven't heard anything specifically concerning mass shooters, but there are studies about ordinary crime and armed citizens that clearly indicate that an armed citizen stands a much higher likelihood of surviving an encounter.

Part of the problem with doing a study on mass shootings is a lack of data points..... there just haven't been enough mass shootings occurring in areas where citizens are armed.
Most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.

In cases where citizens are armed, there seems to be a much lower body count.
Witness the recent Texas church shooting where the shooter got off two shots before having his ticket punched.
Over the last few years there have been a few cases where armed citizens have stopped or interrupted mass shootings, but there just isn't enough data to do a study.

Common sense, (something the gun hating Left don't have) tells us that a mass shooter isn't going to be as successful if people are armed and shooting back, versus a gun-free zone where the shooter can shoot people at leisure before the police can get there.
In every case I've heard of a mass shooting had a low body count when someone was armed and resisting.
Dfariswheel is offline  
Old January 16, 2020, 10:35 AM   #3
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,209
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old January 17, 2020, 12:55 AM   #4
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,017
While not connected to mass shootings, directly, take a look at the Florida crime statistics a year or so after they changed the CCW laws to allow more people to easily carry. (sorry I don't have a link)

What was found that while there was an overall drop in violent attacks/crimes, there was an increase in attacks against tourists. ( People driving cars with out of state plates.) Seems some bad guys figured they would be safer targets than Florida citizens who MIGHT be armed.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 17, 2020, 12:14 PM   #5
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,209
44 Amp, I think that is a bit of a red herring. As with Texas and their initial CHL program, people indicated this, but it just wasn't true. People said for years that crime dropped in Texas after the CHL program started, and it did. In fact the CHL program was so good it cause crime to drop even years before it went into practice! Never mind that violent crime was going down all over the country and had been for years.

If fact, in 2006 in Texas Commissioner Jerry Patterson published a nice article talking about how Texas CHL's lowered the crime rate in Texas. He was, after all, the senior author on the bill and it had been a decade of dropping crime rates in Texas since CHL went into effect in 1996. Cool, right? Stats prove it works.

What the Commissioner failed to tell people was that the Texas crime rate was also in a downward trend BEFORE the CHL went into effect. Apparently the notion of the bill was so powerful, crime in Texas started dropping in the previous decade, wavering back and forth a bit, then started its downward fall in 1992. But this just proves that pro-gun legislation and activities now can have such a powerful effect as to affect crime levels backward through time!!!!

But wait, there is more. Clear evidence that Texas CHLs reduce crime was so effective that when it went into effect in 1996, not only did the crime rate drop in Texas, but there was a national ripple effect that carried over to MA, CA, NY, and ME for several years(from Uniform FBI Crime Reports found online for each state). That is right, sir, statistics have proven that since the implementation of Texas CHL, the crime rates dropped in decidedly anti-gun states as well.

So what about Florida? Does the Florida example really hold water? No.

Here is the table, but it is better seen here... Crime in Florida (sorry, this link is dead. I copied the information from an old post.)
Year Total Violent
Crime Volume % Change Total Violent Crime Rate Per 100,000 Population % Change
1971 38,572 0.0 547.80 0.0
1972 40,248 4.3 540.90 -1.3
1973 46,430 15.4 591.80 9.4
1974 54,852 18.1 665.00 12.4
1975 57,663 5.1 679.60 2.2
1976 54,543 -5.4 637.80 -6.2
1977 57,916 6.2 664.40 4.2
1978 65,784 13.6 733.60 10.4
1979 73,866 12.3 799.00 8.9
1980 94,068 27.3 982.00 23.0
1981 98,090 4.3 971.40 -1.10
1982 93,406 -4.8 900.30 -7.3
1983 88,298 -5.5 833.70 -7.4
1984 95,368 8.0 872.50 4.7
1985 106,980 12.2 948.50 8.7
1986 120,977 13.1 1,037.70 9.4
1987 123,030 1.7 1,021.50 -1.6
1988 138,343 12.4 1,114.10 9.1
1989 145,473 5.2 1,136.70 2.0
1990 160,554 10.4 1,220.90 7.4
1991 158,181 -1.5 1,198.70 -1.8
1992 161,137 1.9 1,200.30 0.08
1993 161,789 0.4 1,188.90 0.9
1994 157,835 -2.4 1,137.20 -4.3
1995 150,208 -4.8 1,061.60 -6.6
1996 151,350 0.8 1050.20 -1.1

Their numbers were up and down before 1987 and were down in 1987 and then dramatically back up in 1988, the very next year and up again the next two years. There is no clear indication that violent crime rates were impacted by concealed carry at all. Violent crime dropped more dramatically in 1976, 1982 and 1983, years before concealed carry than in 1987.

Most of the downward trend you see in violent crime after 1991 seemed to correspond with an overall downward trend in violent crime across the US.
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos

Last edited by Double Naught Spy; January 18, 2020 at 09:53 AM.
Double Naught Spy is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.04941 seconds with 10 queries