Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:17 PM Dec 2012

MoJo: Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.
—By Mark Follman | Mother Jones | Wed Dec. 19, 2012 3:01 AM PS

In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed a M-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea.

Those pesky facts haven't stopped the "arm America more!" crowd from pressing the argument with alleged examples of successful armed interventions. The problem is, the few examples they keep using—in which they depict plain old folks acting heroically and with definitive results—fall apart under scrutiny. Here are five of them and why they don't work:

*Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia
Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage at the law school in 2002 to armed "students" who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammunition by the time they got to him. (continued at link below)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MoJo: Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. (Original Post) 99th_Monkey Dec 2012 OP
Stopping mass shooters isn't the job of people who carry.. pipoman Dec 2012 #1
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
1. Stopping mass shooters isn't the job of people who carry..
Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:24 PM
Dec 2012

protecting themselves and their families is the purpose of carrying concealed. Not stopping robberies, not intervening in domestic issues, and not patrolling the neighborhood...simple self defense when there is no other option.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»MoJo: Do Armed Civilians ...