Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check:Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The claim:
not one of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped [by a citizen with a gun].
So how do they define "mass shooting"? Like this:
The FBI defines a mass murderer as someone who kills four or more people in a single incident, usually in one location. — from this link in that article
In other words, if someone was attempting a mass shooting, but was actually stopped by a someone with a gun, then it's not a "mass shooting" and excluded from the results. That is the only reason they can make such a silly claim.
For example, in the Clackamas Mall shooting on December 11th, the shooter successfully killed two people before he was confronted by a civilian with a gun, ending the spree. But because the spree was successfully ended, by Mother Jones' "logic", it's not a "mass shooting ended by a civilian with a gun".
Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (37 days and counting)
Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime? (35 days and counting)
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (19 days and counting)
You're more likely to be struck dead by lightning than shot by a madman in a hospital, according to a 12-year study of hospital violence by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
4 comments:
The claim:
not one of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped [by a citizen with a gun].
So how do they define "mass shooting"? Like this:
The FBI defines a mass murderer as someone who kills four or more people in a single incident, usually in one location.
— from this link in that article
In other words, if someone was attempting a mass shooting, but was actually stopped by a someone with a gun, then it's not a "mass shooting" and excluded from the results. That is the only reason they can make such a silly claim.
I've pointed this out before, but as usual, you refuse to learn new information. Average deaths when stopped by an armed citizen: 2.3, Average deaths when stopped by 911 response: 14.3
For example, in the Clackamas Mall shooting on December 11th, the shooter successfully killed two people before he was confronted by a civilian with a gun, ending the spree. But because the spree was successfully ended, by Mother Jones' "logic", it's not a "mass shooting ended by a civilian with a gun".
Here's more: Is it True Armed Civilians Have Never Stopped a Mass Shooting?
Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
And this: One in Ten Mass Shootings Stopped by Armed Citizens; Most Occur Where Guns are Banned
Mark, I have to ask. Why do you post silly claims like this, especially when you already know they're silly before you post them?
----------
Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:
Is the Constitution law? (51 days and counting)
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (37 days and counting)
Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime? (35 days and counting)
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (19 days and counting)
Is "false" equal to "truth"? (13 days and counting)
Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards
Here's another article that also promotes that study:
DOTmed.com
You're more likely to be struck dead by lightning than shot by a madman in a hospital, according to a 12-year study of hospital violence by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Why didn't you mention that finding, Mark?
This stinks. I noted before how their claim that mass shooting were never stopped by civilians was entirely a product of their selection criteria that basically eliminated all the mass shootings that were stopped by someone armed. They also ignore the deterrent effect that guns are supposed to have. John Allen Fox’s study shows that mass shootings have been flat over the last thirty years.
The second point comes from a study of 265 incidents in emergency rooms. I hardly think that’s a representative sample of anything. It’s so obscure, I have to believe it was cherry picked. Back in reality, I found this (PDF) 2001 report from the Justice Department which interviews tens of thousands of inmates. Most of them got their guns either illegally or from a friend. The number who got them from their victims was too small to be included.
I think this a perfect demonstration of how Mother Jones selectively cites their stats. The 2001 study is linked in Myth #10 to show that most criminals get their guns in private sales. But when it comes time to figure out how many get their guns off their victims, Mother Jones does not cite the massive study that shows very few guns are obtained that way. No, they go to an obscure study of 265 ER incidents.
Apparently cops with guns aren't good guys.
Post a Comment