Private Gun Carriers' Self-Defense Against Public Shooters

The El Paso incident from a few days ago, the FBI 2021 statistics, and more.

I had written about this in past years, but I thought I'd update it to reflect the El Paso incident from last week. According to the El Paso Police Department (see also CNN [Andy Rose]), a confrontation between two groups of teenagers at a mall "escalated into a physical fight" and then into a 16-year-old fatally shooting a member of the other group and seriously wounding another member, as well as injuring a member of his own group. Then,

As soon as the shooting ended, the 16-year-old suspect began to run and was pointing the gun towards the direction of bystanders, including 32-year-old Emanuel Duran, a Licensed to Carry Holder. As the suspect ran towards Duran and bystanders, Duran drew his handgun and shot the suspect.

At that time, one off-duty El Paso Police Officer arrived at the area of the shooting and together with Duran rendered aid to the 16-year old suspect and the others that were injured. Investigators found that there were at least two other legally armed citizens in the area of where the shooting took place, but were not involved.

Now in this case, the suspect didn't seem to have planned a mass shooting; he seems to have had a beef with the other teenagers. On the other hand, he appears to have been pointing his gun towards the bystanders, so it's hard to know what would have happened. And something similar could easily have happened with an intended mass shooting as well; for an incident like that from last year, see this WCHS-TV story:

Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.

Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday …. No injuries were reported from those at the party.

Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.

"Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night," Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.

According to WCHS-TV (Bob Aaron), Butler was a convicted felon, and was thus not legally allowed to own guns. In principle, perhaps he might still have been stopped by (say) a law requiring background checks, which would likely have stopped law-abiding sellers from selling him the gun; but it's not clear whether someone with his criminal record would have much been stymied by that, as opposed to just buying a gun on the black market. Likewise, in El Paso, CNN reports that the gun used by the 16-year-old shooter was reported stolen.

I gathered some more examples from over the years here, and then followed up with data based on FBI reports of mass shootings in 2016 and 2017: legal civilian gun carriers tried to intervene in 6 out of 50 incidents, and apparently succeeded in 3 or 4 of them.

The FBI also has 2021 data (I don't expect the 2022 data until later this year). That reports 61 "active shooter" incidents, of which 12 were treated as "mass killing" incidents, and 4 of those active shooter incidents led to "shooters [being] killed by citizen," all apparently involve gun-wielding citizens (PDF p. 4, 11-12). Two more incidents involved citizens detaining a shooter without using guns themselves. Some of the incidents I discussed in my earlier posts involved gun-wielding citizens stopping a shooter without killing him, but none seem to have occurred that way in 2021.

A few thoughts, which I'd mentioned before, but which I thought I'd repeat:

[1.] Unsurprisingly, sometimes the good guy (or, in the West Virginia incident, gal) with a gun succeeds and sometimes not. Sometimes the success might be a lucky break; sometimes a lucky break for the defender might have ended the incident more quickly. And it's impossible to tell for sure how many lives, if any, were saved in the aggregate, because that's generally a counterfactual. Still, the aggregate pattern seems to be that armed civilian self-defense takes place in a significant fraction of active shooter incidents.

[2.] None of this proves that broad concealed carry rights on balance do more good than harm (or vice versa). But it is a response to claims that I've heard that the good guy with a gun never helps; these incidents further show that there are potential pluses to broad concealed carry rights, and of course there are potential minuses as well.

[3.] Some shootings are in places where concealed carry is not allowed, such as on school premises or in jurisdictions where concealed carry licenses are often hard to get. It's hard to tell for sure how many of the shootings fit into this category, because laws vary from state to state, and rules vary from business to business (plus in some states carrying in a business that prohibits guns is itself a crime). But it's possible that there would have been more defensive uses of guns in some cases if people were legally allowed to have their guns there.

[4.] Finally, always keep in mind that public shooting situations should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: Active-shooter mass shootings on average account for less than 1% of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Likewise, shootings at malls when they're open, whether they involve an active shooter or a fight that leads to a shooting and then the shooter running with possibly ambiguous intentions, are quite rare. But people talk about such public shootings a lot, so I thought I'd offer a perspective on them for those who are interested.

Thanks to Prof. Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit) for the pointer to the El Paso story.

Comments

[CindyF]

There is a reason that mass shooters go to places such as schools to commit mass shootings. There is less likely there will be someone to shoot back. Even if there is an armed guard, he or she is normally wearing a uniform and easily identifiable and able to become a target. If there is a chance there may be several unknown people in the location who are carrying a concealed weapon, there is a greater chance the shooter will choose another target.

I see the familiar print of a holstered firearm on several people each time I go shopping or just about anywhere in my rural area. It's a comforting feeling to know there are so many armed citizens nearby just in case some nut case is pissed off at his girlfriend, co-worker, or just life in general.

[Orbital Mechanic]

They go to schools because that is where they will get the most bang for their buck. They want their impact to be as violently outrageous as possible and that is why they go to schools.

Also, they sometimes have a grievance related to that school or schools in general.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Copy cat effect is enhanced by lurid coverage of mass murderers.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I repost this periodically, and it seems particularly relevant here.

There is a reason so many mass shootings happen at schools -- they are gun-free zones. Take that away, allow armed teachers, and mass school shootings will vanish within weeks or months as news reports show how suicidal and ineffective they have become.

Read or skim this article. It is not mine; I only post this link and a short summary. Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously. One begins to suspect there's a reason Mother Jones and the police ignore shootings with fewer than 4 victims.

I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data.

• The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29
• The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

The way to stop school shootings is simple:

* Get rid of gun-free zones.

* Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn't matter.

Making carry mandatory isn't necessary, as shown by the statistics above, and it offends my sense of liberty, reduces the employment pool, and many people are not very good with guns.

Another bit of related research: https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/major-new-research-on-school-safety-schools-that-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns-havent-seen-school-shootings-during-school-hours/

[JasonT20]

There is a reason so many mass shootings happen at schools — they are gun-free zones.

Even in the absence of laws against carrying guns on school grounds, how many people with guns would you expect to find? I am a teacher. There is no way in hell I would carry my gun at school. (And yes, I own guns, including a 9mm handgun.) None of my colleagues (in Florida) have ever expressed a desire to carry a gun, either. More than 90% of the people on the campus are children, so that is out as well.

A high school campus is also not a "gun-free zone" as they will have 1-2 armed police officers present as well. And unlike teachers, guidance counselors, secretaries, and administrators, they actually have training on how to respond to a shooter when there will be dozens of children in the line of fire between them and the shooter.

[defaultdotxbe]

Didn’t the armed police officer at Parktown wait outside while teachers shielded students with their own bodies?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

As I said ...

Making carry mandatory isn’t necessary, as shown by the statistics above, and it offends my sense of liberty, reduces the employment pool, and many people are not very good with guns.

Who are you to speak for all other teachers and staff?

How many of those schools which had mass shootings had police on campus?

[JasonT20]

Who are you to speak for all other teachers and staff?

Where did I claim to speak for all other teachers? I spoke for myself and said that none of my colleagues have ever expressed a desire to carry a gun. That is all.

How many of those schools which had mass shootings had police on campus?

And you think it would be better if lots of untrained people on the campus were carrying guns as well? Why?

Why not make it harder for potential school shooters to get the guns they would use in the first place instead?

[iowatwo]

none of my colleagues have ever expressed a desire to carry a gun. That is all.

Not speaking does not equal. agreeing with you. I'll bet they never talked about their sexual kinks. Doesn't mean they didn't partake.

[JasonT20]

Not quite. With Florida in particular having gone through the "arm the teachers" moments, I have spoken with some of my colleagues about the issue. Those that said anything scoffed at the idea. Like me, they quickly recognized the much greater potential for teachers having guns to create problems than to solve them.

The truth is that we hear about school shootings because it is a shocking and terrifying thing when children at school are exposed to that or are victims of it.* But it is still quite rare compared to gun violence in total.

Quite frankly, I see reports all the time that make it clear to me that too many idiots have guns as well as too many disturbed people. But there are no "red flag" laws or other ways for laws to ban idiots from having guns. So they will continue to shoot people because they are idiots, and we can't blame that on gun-free zones. We can only blame the fact that the U.S. allows so many guns to be in private hands that it is inevitable that a lot of idiots will be among those with guns. And that many of those idiots with guns will be carrying them because they think that they need them in order to protect themselves from other idiots. The obvious result of this is idiots shooting at each other and innocent people, including children, getting in the way.

Schools are a place that children are supposed to be safe, since they are out of their parents' supervision. That we can't keep children as safe as we want them to be at school is not a problem created by adult employees of the schools not being armed.

*Or are the cause of it, like the case of the 6 year old that shot his teacher. This brings up another nightmare scenario. What if that teacher had been armed? Should she have shot the 6 year old child to protect herself?

[Kazinski]

The definition of gun free zones means the general public not law enforcement.

Court houses are gun free zones, but crawling with armed law enforcement.

[JasonT20]

Yep. Our betters will always be sure that they are protected from random nuts and idiots carrying guns in places where they work, while leaving it to us to defend ourselves from each other. (Don't forget that state legislators and governors make sure that they work in gun free zones.)

[jimc5499]

"None of my colleagues (in Florida) have ever expressed a desire to carry a gun, either."

Why would they? In some areas it would make them a target of the Administration. How many just carry anyway? Might be more than you think.

[Rossami]

re: “None of my colleagues … have ever expressed a desire to carry a gun, either.”

Given your obvious opinions on the topic, why would you expect any of your colleagues to mention that to you? You don’t exactly come across as neutral or welcoming of those with different values.

[JasonT20]

You don’t exactly come across as neutral or welcoming of those with different values.

So much to respond to with this. I'll limit it to two things. One, "neutral and welcoming of those with different values" as compared to whom? Other people in the comments here? Two, do you use the same tone and choice of words among work colleagues that you use in anonymous debates in comments on the internet?

[Henry]

Someday, perhaps you will have a "conversion" on the subject of guns. On that day, you will be amazed at the number of people you thought you knew well that you start to learn have long been gun owners and active carriers.
Gun owners have a very effective "gaydar" for gun haters, and superior self-preservation instincts.

[DonP]

Ummmm, schools in the Blue cities are getting rid of their armed "Resource Officers".

Chicago, for example, has removed almost all of their armed officers at the demand of the School Board and the Mayor's office. Part of their pathetic "Defund the Police" movement. Because after all; "... police with a gun are a danger to the children".

So, if you're a teacher in one of those schools; as the preacher in Blazing Saddles said; "You're on your own son".

Good luck blocking the door with the desks and wall charts.

[JasonT20]

Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously.

Right. That articles analysis is counting shooters stopped by someone else. Why not include the incidents when no one stopped the shooter or the shooter killed themselves?

https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/major-new-research-on-school-safety-schools-that-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns-havent-seen-school-shootings-during-school-hours/

Really? How many schools allow teachers to carry guns? And when they do, how many teachers actually do end up carrying a gun? I am not convinced it would even be worth my time to click on the link for that.

[defaultdotxbe]

You should try reading the article. It includes shooters who killed themselves after police showed up in the "stopped by police" tally.

[Henry]

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

Don't just ad-hominem the blog name, read the research.

[Dick King]

"Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn’t matter."

I think concealed is a lot better, because open carriers can just be avoided or neutralized.

-dk

[Nige]

So one of the duties of teachers in the modern US would be to engage in gunfights, should the occasion arise.

[I Callahan]

Better than being dead. Or surrounded by dead kids.

[Stephen Lathrop]

My guess, if you could arm every teacher nationwide, school teachers shooting at each other would become a more common problem than mass school shootings. I say that seriously.

[I Callahan]

What you believe is entirely unserious, despite the fact that you seriously believe it. There is no way in hell that would happen. Liberals so completely misunderstand humanity it would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Callahan, like other people, school teachers get into furious disputes among themselves. They nurse grudges. They prosecute feuds against co-workers. Some school teachers become emotionally labile. Some school teachers are feckless. Some school teachers get drunk on the job. Some school teachers become paranoid schizophrenics.

Not only that, but those challenged school teachers confront at times hostile members of the public. Those may appear in schools in agitated, threatening, and emotionally aggressive states of mind.

In short, school teachers suffer the same goads to loss of self-control, and to violent outbursts, as do any other group. Among other people, those kinds of foibles, plus gun prevalence, predictably deliver thousands of unjustified shootings per year. An unexamined assumption that for some reason that would not happen among school teachers is thus peculiar.

Without explanation, your peculiar assumption becomes unsupportable. School teachers in the U.S. number approximately 6 million, a bit more than 2% of the population, and more than 4% of the labor force. Leaving suicides out of the picture, the U.S. suffers approximately 130,000 shootings a year, counting medically treated gunshot survivors along with the fatalities.

That suggests a statistically equivalent share of shootings among school teachers would fall somewhere between 2,600 and 5,200 shootings a year. If you unaccountably assume extraordinary self-control and virtue among school teachers, compared to all others, making them only 10 percent as likely as others to shoot people, then you can expect 260 to 520 shootings per year. Notably more if all school teachers go armed, because the baseline comes from a public among which not all members are armed.

I think school teachers probably are more reliable and less violent than average (especially because school teachers remain predominantly women), but my bet would be that they are more than 10% as violent as everyone else, including all women. My guess is that school teachers are about twice as reliable with guns as average Americans are—and thus I would expect some multiple of 260 school shootings per year. What is your guess? How big a divergence from the norm can you expect from such a large statistical sample?

No matter how you figure it, a policy to arm all teachers in schools would predictably deliver at least 100s of school shootings per year. That is all before you figure in the substantial additional hazard that armed teachers (plus other school personnel) will too often practice slipshod gun management, with a result that guns get into the hands of students.

Arm-the-teachers advocates really do need to think this through.

[Rossami]

You were among those predicting "blood in the streets" when Ohio liberalized their gun laws. You made similar predictions for other changes to gun laws. You've been wrong in every case. What makes you so confident now when you've been so consistently wrong in the past?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami, you are thinking of someone else. If you suppose otherwise, show me the quote, in full context please.

I will say this now. There is blood in the streets of Ohio. More than three times as much blood per capita as there is in Massachusetts. Twenty-seven states do better than Ohio.

Note also, as for changes in gun laws, I cannot remember any for decades that I expected would reduce gun violence statistics. Even the so-called assault weapons ban was nothing of the kind. It grandfathered in all existing weapons. Why would anyone expect something like that to notably reduce violent use of so-called assault weapons?

[Nige]

But wondering how it came about that those were the only choices.

[Henry]

"Duty," "lots of," "untrained," "desire," "supply them with guns." These are the strawmen that opponents always throw into the argument.
Tell you what. We'd be totally satisfied if the school administration and federal and state law just REMOVED the ROADBLOCKS they put in front of LETTING those ALREADY TRAINED adults who WISH TO carry their firearms to their work in school buildings do so.
But that wouldn't involve the MANDATES required to keep some people happy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Henry, it would also do nothing to demonstrate a public advantage, as opposed to a public detriment, from doing what you demand. Could we at least ask for a principle that changes in public policy regarding guns should be supported by a preponderance of evidence that the change is not unwise?

[Sarcastr0]

I don’t think your assumptions as to the plans of mass shooters is well established.

I’m not even sure if gun free zones have more or less baseline mass shootings, uh less that it’s causal.

It’s a lovely story, and it could be true. But so far just a story.

[Henry]

Well, to comment on the particular shooting in the article, it occurred in a "Simon" mall, which are all gun-free zones by policy (though in Texas, this doesn't carry force of law unless appropriately placarded). Yet so far we've identified at least three people other than the shooter who were armed despite that. Interesting.
Contrast this with the last El Paso mall shooting, where no one other than the shooter was armed. Better yet, let's let CNN contrast it: "One person was killed and three others were injured in a shooting Wednesday evening at a mall in El Paso... The mall is immediately adjacent to a Walmart where a shooting in 2019 killed 23 and left nearly two dozen more injured."
Yeah, that's why I carry.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Henry, for all you can prove, you might as well say, "Because there is too much gun violence in America, I make it a point to take on an extra dollop of personal gun risk."

[Mr. Bumble]

"... and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law,". Or any law. Would be great if fear or respect for law stopped crime but it doesn't and never has.

[Longtobefree]

It still amazes me that whether or not a constitutional right "works" is part of the discussion.

Shall no be infringed means shall not be infringed.
Open carry concealed carry, over the shoulder carry, whatever; shall not be infringed.

[Nige]

Maybe it should be infringed, a little, because of all the murdered children, if nothing else.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/2023/02/15/lawmakers-use-kid-safety-as-excuse-to-violate-adults-rights/

[Nige]

Gunsellers use adult rights as excuse to let kids get slaughtered.

[Henry]

Because people buy guns only because gunsellers make them do it.

[The original jack burton]

Thank you for agreeing with me that Muslim religious rights should be curtailed because of all the dead innocents caused by their people acting out their beliefs.

[Nige]

Yes, their gun rights would be curtailed along with everyone elses.

[DonP]

Well gee, then why not get started on repealing the 2nd instead of just whining online? It's all laid out for you on "How To".

You're never going to get the SCOTUS you want to overrule Heller, McDonald or Bruen. Not to mention future decisions to come.

Even when Obama and Joe had both houses of Congress for 2 years, they didn't dare to seriously touch gun control. They just used it for fundraising from the lefty suckers, that were just dumb enough to think they meant it.

So, which gun control groups do you pay dues to? Maybe mail a check to Bloomberg every time he says "Gun Control"?

Or are you just another whiny keyboard warrior for gun control. Because; "We have to do something" (never mind if it actually works or addresses the problem) just do something!

[Nige]

There's unquestionably cowardice when it comes to enacting actual gun control at a legislative level. Oh for politicians with the gumption to laugh in Republican's faces when they whine about their freedoms being worth the price of slaughtered kids.

[JasonT20]

It isn't even about Democrats doing that. Republicans usually won't even entertain gun laws that poll very highly. They have to please the strident minority among their base rather than represent the broader will of the people. Universal background checks? Slippery slope leading to national gun registries and fascists coming for the guns of law-abiding citizens! Waiting periods? People will get killed waiting to buy their gun! Confiscate guns from people with domestic violence protection orders against them? They haven't been convicted yet! Ban high capacity magazines? I need to be able to fire at least 15 rounds to adequately protect myself! Make the minimum age to buy semi automatic rifles and handguns 21? 18 year olds need to protect themselves too!

Look it up. Some of those have 90% support and none less than a solid majority favoring them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

DonP, your comment is incoherent. Yes, political will to control guns is lacking. Elected office-holders fear swing voters. You are right about that.

But that increases the likelihood that gun control advocates will try to get what they want without political unaccountably, by using the Supreme Court—just like the pro-gun advocates did. And if anti-gun folks can do that, pro-gun advocates will find the political shoe on the other foot, only more so. A minority backs extreme gun rights and no restrictions; it will prove a less potent swing vote than the larger minority which already favors gun control.

Enjoy it while you can. Push too hard for even more, and you roll the dice.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Unsurprisingly, sometimes the good guy (or, in the West Virginia incident, gal) with a gun succeeds and sometimes not.

Remember that the self-defense laws that apply here are the same for police as for ordinary citizens. So this discussion should not be held separately for police and for ordinary citizens. The same laws and the same considerations apply equally to both.

So, I'm not disagreeing with what EV said. But I do object to not mentioning police in the blog post.

[Rossami]

re: "the self-defense laws that apply here are the same for police as for ordinary citizens"

In general, no they're not. In fact, I can't think of even a single jurisdiction where they're the same. Police have a different ethical obligation and police have very different legal protections when they use lethal force.

[The Other Bob M]

There was a case in 2021 in Colorado where a CCW permitee shot and killed an attacker and was then killed by responding police officers. John Hurley killed Ronald Troyke after he'd killed an Arvada cop. He then inexplicably picked up Troyke's rifle and was holding both the rifle and his own handgun when backup officers arrived.

[ragebot]

Hey Bob M is that the exception or the rule.

[Macy's Window]

Incompetent police is a reason to blame CCWs?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Macy’s Window, try to add at least a bit of real-world gun insight to your unreflective gun jones.

The professional military is not incompetent about guns. Which is why it practices extreme gun control whenever it can—disarming soldiers and locking guns in guarded armories.

What experiences could possibly have decided a gun-centric military culture to exercise such extreme caution about guns? For a hint, read up on military combat histories—the kinds of accounts that get down in the weeds with ordinary grunts.

They all find out quick that good guys with guns are always a deadly menace to everyone around them, including their own compatriots. Sometimes, after being mistakenly targeted, combat soldiers end up shooting at their own side on purpose. It can be the only way to save their own lives.

In combat, friendly fire casualties are ubiquitous, not some kind of rare exception. Any of the many excellent books by military historian Antony Beevor will get you up to speed. Accounts of friendly fire deaths—not infrequently numerous deaths—turn out to be commonplace.

You apparently entertain a notion of gun prowess sufficient to control what happens amidst gun combat. That manifests sketchy gun experience, combined with imaginative failure, and adds bad judgement—plus maybe television gun romances as a substitute for practical experience of actual gun-related activity.

Try to forget everything you think you know about guns. Then go looking for sources to tell you what has actually happened when people use guns. Stay away from the gun porn magazines; avoid other gun industry propaganda.

There really is better information out there. It is way better to find out that way than by actual super-dangerous experience. While taking in gun information, use this two-pronged method: (1) bypass everything that has a point to make about guns; (2) ask yourself, is this an account of something which actually happened?

Now feel free to discount what I said, and get going on a well-considered project to equip your gun notions with dispassionate information to support them.

[Orbital Mechanic]

These stories make it apparent that a person with a concealed-carry permit is more likely to be the "good guy with a gun" than not. Possible reason: although requirements vary from one jurisdiction to another the permit holder has at least some recognized obligation to the law and oversight by it, not to mention required training.

If this then it shows that gun control laws that would require registration, background checks, and training would actually work.

As we have it now, unrestrained access and fetishization of 2A "rights" does not work.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Please explain how it does not work. Criminals carry regardless of laws.

[Orbital Mechanic]

Kyle Rittenhouse would be in jail because when the cops saw him with a gun he had no business having they would have arrested him instead of tossing him a water bottle and a cheery wave.

And two people wouldn't have been murdered that night.

[Michael P]

You have no business acting like you get to decide whether he should have been carrying a gun or not.

And a jury decided nobody was murdered that night.

[I Callahan]

Yes, he did have business carrying that weapon. He was protecting property during a riot. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

And the two people “murdered” attacked HIM. How can you people spew this propaganda when you know it’s a lie?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Callahan, the guy pursuing Rittenhouse was a threat. He had not yet attacked, when Rittenhouse rounded on him and shot him dead. I am content to endorse a jury verdict of not-guilty for Rittenhouse, based on reasonable fear of harm. But absent the weapon, I put the chance that both Rittenhouse and the other guy would be alive and unharmed today at > 99.99%.

It was the weapon that provoked the confrontation. The guy pursuing Rittenhouse did not pursue anyone else who did not display a weapon. It was the weapon that made the confrontation a deadly one. Rittenhouse could not afford to get into a fight with anyone, because in the middle of violent disorder he was stupidly proceeding alone, while carrying a weapon that could have been turned against him. I get that our gun laws do not impose responsibility for that kind of stupidity. But they should.

[I Callahan]

Nonsense on stilts from top to bottom. If you’re being pursued by a rioter, it’s automatically a threat. Period. The whole basis of your argument is a complete twisting of facts to fit a narrative.

Oh, and if you’re stupid enough to physically attack a man who has a gun, you’re too stupid to be alive in the first place.

What utter tripe.

[Bruce Hayden]

Agree with the previous commenters. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone with some sort of aggravated intent. Rittenhouse was acquitted of an unlawful killing by a jury of his peers, on the grounds of self defense. Thus, he didn’t murder anyone, since his killing of the two was not unlawful. Rather, it was permitted as self defense.

The weapons charge was based on a LawFare type creative misinterpretation of the statute. It was dismissed by the prosecution before trial, because criminal statutes have to be clear, and if they aren’t, they are strictly construed against the government. A plain (I.e. nor LawFare) reading of the law would lead to the conclusion that 16 and 17 year olds in WI can legally carry long guns openly, unless, they are hunting, and haven’t taken a firearms safety class. He wasn’t hunting, was 17, so could legally carry the gun openly. Of course, he was an IL resident, and it, of course, would have been illegal there. But he wasn’t in IL at the time. Carrying it across the border also would have been illegal. But there is no evidence that he ever did that. Instead, it was bought in WI, and stayed there when he went back home to IL. They might have made the charge that he had had a straw purchaser, but they didn’t.

[hoppy025]

The left always describes it as "murder" when they don't like what happened. They still say that George Zimmerman "murdered" Thugvon Martin.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"If this then it shows that gun control laws that would require registration, background checks, and training would actually work."

*If* it's these laws which induce people to receive training in the proper use of firearms.

"I was gonna spend the evening drinking beer and shooting the empties off of fence posts, but instead I think I'll take firearms-training classes because the law wants me to be a responsible citizen."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Depending on what's downrange of those fenceposts, and how MUCH beer you drink, I don't have a problem with the former -- my concern is someone who is carrying a weapon that the person has never fired and somehow expects to have 100% accuracy with.

[Kazinski]

Texas where this incident happened is a constitutional carry state: No permit or training needed to carry a concealed weapon.

I got my concealed weapons permit in Washington where they do a background check, but no training is needed, that was the law since 1962, although I think it’s been changed.

[iowatwo]

Orbital,
There are States that have been constitutional carry for decades. Those States are great laboratories, evaluating the laws and measuring their success or failures. Last I checked those states are still doing much better that very restrictive States

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh finally finds a gun-related story -- after avoiding several prominent ones -- to which he wishes to direct attention.

[hoppy025]

Don't you have a boy to be grooming?

[Stephen Lathrop]

But it is a response to claims that I've heard that the good guy with a gun never helps;

Foolish people might say that. I wonder how many people are that foolish.

But it's possible that there would have been more defensive uses of guns in some cases if people were legally allowed to have their guns there.

True. It's also possible there would have been more bystanders injured or killed to no purpose.

[Macy's Window]

Are you one of those who would argue that it would be better if only mass shooters were armed?

Because if ordinary people shoot back they'd do more harm than good?

I always thought that was a very amusing argument.

[Henry]

"I wonder how many people are that foolish."
Entire gun control and media organizations are that foolish, by their own admission.

[Stephen Lathrop]

In general, speculation of the sort Professor Volokh offers above is not a wise choice to make a case for increased gun prevalence. Problem is, for every shooting incident where bystanders intervene with guns, or might do so, there are an unknown number of occasions featuring bystanders who were armed, but did nothing.

EV mentions that in passing above. It deserves more attention, because it subtly weights the debate in favor of gun prevalence in a way that cannot withstand scrutiny.

Each extra gun, whether used or not, is an added increment of social gun hazard wherever it is kept, and wherever it goes. To take note of helpful instances of private gun use to prevent crime or save innocent lives is to count each such instance in a positive way. That happens without adjustment for whatever statistical hazard that gun added to society before things worked out for the best. Intuitively, we might insist that a demonstrated positive gun use obviously outweighs any possible negatives attributable to that particular gun. That seems almost unassailable.

But we usually do not know how many other unused guns were at the scene, and did nothing to help. Yet each of those unused guns at the scene adds a similar statistical increment of risk for society. As do all the unused guns which were not at the scene, but instead were being carried everywhere.

To make this point easier to frame in specific context, imagine a program to guard a typical public middle school by training as many teachers as are willing to do it, and letting them carry guns to and from school, and keep the guns on their persons while teaching. Experience with school systems which have used such programs has shown that it is far more likely that a teacher (or armed security officer) will lose control of his/her gun, leave it in the lavatory, or by carelessness allow students to get hold of it, than it is that an armed assailant will ever try to shoot up the school.

The problem is, that every positive case of defensive gun use must be discounted by some unknown, but obviously very large, number of risk increments which do not ever get figured in narratives like the one Professor Volokh offers here. He knows that. He is fair about mentioning it. But his OP still gets presented as if it were a plus-one account of defensive gun use, when we know it can be nothing of the kind.

[Jerry B.]

"Experience with school systems which have used such programs has shown that it is far more likely that a teacher (or armed security officer) will lose control of his/her gun, leave it in the lavatory, or by carelessness allow students to get hold of it, than it is that an armed assailant will ever try to shoot up the school."

Cite, please.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Already cited in a previous thread. Your turn now.

The study in question looked at reports from, if I recall correctly, maybe a few hundred schools. The amount of reckless gun management which turned up was astonishing. Multiple instances of guns left in lavatories. Multiple instances of guns grabbed from holsters by students. One case where a campus security officer sent a student out to his car to fetch in the gun. A couple of unstable teachers with guns. All sorts of stuff like that. Hope you find it.

In fairness, I think there were only two gun discharges in the schools, and only one of those resulted in a (minor) injury. That's all from memory of something I found an posted maybe a year ago, so check to see if I misremembered.

[Macy's Window]

So, you can't provide the cite?

But you say that -- with all this negligent gun handling -- there were only 2 discharges and 1 minor injury?

You have undermined your own argument. Well done.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Re-read what you wrote. Scale it up nationwide and see how you like it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

JerryB., okay, new cite. Today's NYT reports the superintendent of schools in Rising Star Texas left his gun behind in an elementary school lavatory. A third grader found the gun and turned it in. The superintendent has resigned.

[Squirrelloid]

You, of course, have evidence that each additional carried gun adds risk? That has been measured and found statistically significant? That you can provide a citation for?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Squirelloid, what's wrong with you? Of course every gun adds risk. It's a death-dealing machine, all the time, everywhere it goes.

You do not need any citation to understand that. All you need is enough experience carrying a long gun to have experienced a balance mishap, one where you lost control of where the muzzle was pointed. Which I guarantee if you carry a gun for hundreds or thousands of hours, ready to use, will eventually happen to you.

Likewise, if you carry a pistol in a holster, sooner or later, some unavoidable distraction will intervene to disrupt your ritualized controls. Happenstance is all the stuff which intervenes in ways you can't predict. It disrupts the confident alike with everyone else. If you do not understand that, you should not be anywhere near a gun.

That's why when it comes to guns, I prefer to be around folks who are less confident. That way I know they have enough experience to avoid the stupid mistake to presume it is possible to have a gun around without increased risk.

[Bruce Hayden]

Sure, if you add 100 million legally purchased firearms to the country’s private collections, the numbers of accidents will go up some. But the statistics don't show them going up by much, with legally purchased and legally possessed firearms. There just haven’t been a spate of Alec Baldwins or Claudine Longets (who “accidentally” shot and killed Olympic skier Spider Sabich decades ago in Aspen). Outside the inner city, mostly black, communities (where the guns are usually illegal), the rate, per gun seems to be decreasing. Guns are actually safer now, with innovations making most drop safe. Moreover, there is a lot more gun safety education. Used to be, in CO, where I grew up, several gun accidents every year, where someone dropped their hunting rifle or shotgun, it discharged, and the discharge hit and wounded or killed someone. That sort of thing is reported less and less. Education works, at least with legal gun owners.

Think of the difference a century made in the auto industry. Back then, there were few fatal automobile accidents, because there were very few automobiles in the country, but the ones that happened tended to be more likely fatal. Now tens of thousands of people die every year, on the roads, but on a per capita driver, or per vehicle level, driving or riding in a car is far safer - it’s just that they are now ubiquitous, and not extremely rare. That’s the argument that you seem to be making.

On the other side, there better than a million estimated successful defensive gun uses a year, most not involving the discharge of a firearm. That is what you have to set off against your number of accidental or negligent discharges. I know people who wouldn’t own a gun, even if it would save their life. And one of their arguments is the one you make, that no matter how careful they are, they might accidentally shoot themselves or someone else. I am not in that group. I have several times been in a situation where my being armed may have protected me from at least being mugged. An intentional “printing” of my gun was all it took for inquiring eyes to look elsewhere. I am more willing to risk accidents, than being mugged because I wasn’t armed, because preventing the accidents is on me.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But we usually do not know how many other unused guns were at the scene, and did nothing to help. Yet each of those unused guns at the scene adds a similar statistical increment of risk for society. As do all the unused guns which were not at the scene, but instead were being carried everywhere.

Statistically meaningless, it would seem, or else we'd be hearing a lot more about people being accidentally killed/wounded by people legally carrying firearms in public. Sorry, but real-world results mean a lot more than your "what I choose to believe" assumptions when it comes to risk assessment.

[jimc5499]

Another reason why more armed people don't step up may be the lack of consistency to the self-defense laws. Several years ago our County District Attorney stated that in her opinion there was no such thing as self-defense. That she would prosecute anyone to the fullest of her capabilities.
Why should I risk losing everything that I own and/or face prison time, if I step in?

[hoppy025]

The same caselaw that prohibits statements that have a "chilling effect" on the 1st Amendment should apply to this as well. And that female DA should be prosecuted.

[Nige]

Or maybe having a gun doesn't actually make you brave, smart or effective.

[I Callahan]

Who said it did? All it has to do is make one safer than when not armed. And that’s a constant.

[hoppy025]

I don't carry to protect the general public. I carry to protect myself, my wife, and my sons.

[Henry]

To amplify on that, the citizen-shooter in this case did not choose to intervene because somebody was shooting somebody else with a gun, but because that somebody was now running towards him with that gun pointed in his general direction. Extremely justifiable.

[Voize]

Finally, always keep in mind that public shooting situations should not be the main focus in the gun debate

Ironic to read that in a post immediately following a weekend where there were 10 mass shootings.

[Bruce Hayden]

And very likely, each and every one of those mass shootings involved illegal possession of the guns used. The first one apparently involved spillover of a party of teenagers, which very likely means that the guns involved were illegally obtained, and they were likely indulging in substances that they could not legally possess, at their ages, such as alcohol, pot, etc. most of it is invariably black on black, and/or gang and/or drug trade related. You can usually tell that it is black on black, if the race of the shooters is not disclosed, esp in news sources like this one. It is refreshing that the MSM is finally admitting that almost all mass shootings involve these demographics and circumstances, instead of focusing on the extremely rare Columbine type white or Asian on mostly white school shootings. Geographically, we are talking a couple percent of the country geographically, and maybe 5% (definitely less than 10%) population wise. Eliminate that, and this country is one of the safer ones.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The Texas church shooting was stopped by the neighborhood across the street and his rifle. Got the shooter on the way to kill his in-laws because they weren’t at church.

Way to diminish your own point.

[Area Man]

This is counter-intuitive, but since the carrying of guns is tightly regulated on military bases, they are more akin to gun-free zones. It’s not surprising, then, that the Fort Hood shooter was able to kill a lot of people.

And, until recently, in Texas, churches were also gun-free zones. Or, at least, the law strongly indicated they were. See https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/20/texas-handgun-allowed-churches-sutherland-springs/

[defaultdotxbe]

CindyF: "Mass shooters target gun-free zones"

Queenie: "Oh yeah, then what about these 3 shootings that happened in gun-free zones?"

Everyone with a brain: "???"

[Rossami]

The Fort Hood shooting occurred in a location that, counterintuitively, had the tightest gun controls you will find anywhere. The only exception? Facility leadership like the guy who went on the rampage.

[Frank Drackman]

It does actually, at most military bases there are probably fewer peoples carrying loaded weapons than in the neighboring town, especially the Navy Yard, you ever been to that part of DC??

[Dr. Ed 2]

Fort Hood was a gun-free zone -- believe it or not, and I had trouble with this, but military personnel are required to keep their personal weapons in the base armory. Likewise the Navy Yard.

Both were GUN FREE ZONES.

[jimc5499]

When I was in the Navy, I was not allowed to carry a personal weapon. When I lived in the barracks, I wasn't allowed to have a personal weapon in my room, I had to check it in to the Base Armory. The same was true with Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard. That's your second and third strikes.

[I Callahan]

Fort Hood was a gun free zone. Thanks to a law put in place by Clinton, no soldiers were allowed to carry a weapon on base. So you’re doubly wrong.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't pay attention much? Senescent Joe has (Stopped all effort on Illegal Immigration)

[Rossami]

Not very long ago, that was a valid parental decision. And plenty of eight year olds not only did carry but did so responsibly and helped put food on the table.

[Frank Drackman]

I carried when I was eight

[Currentsitguy]

I see that walking down my road ever year on the 1st day of Buck Season.

[Kazinski]

Wikipedia:
Annie Oakley “began trapping before the age of seven, and shooting and hunting by age eight, to support her siblings and her widowed mother.”

[Rossami]

Subject to parental discretion, yes, 8 year olds have traditionally held the right to generally carry.

[Rossami]

Yes, you can. The argument doesn't work the way you claim, however, because most laws only constrain the criminal's behavior.

'Don't murder', for example, serves the direct social goal of letting us punish murders without infringing the rights of even a single non-murderer.

Gun control laws, by contrast, try to achieve the social goal of reducing murders indirectly by making murderers break two laws instead of only one to commit their particular crime. This has not been shown to be an incrementally effective tactic. Along the way, they criminalize the otherwise-innocent activities of vast swaths of non-murderers.

[hoppy025]

This retarded argument from the left is really getting old. "You say criminals don't obey laws, so should we eliminate all laws? AH HA! Got you!"

No, you fucking morons. The difference is that a law against robbery only affects robbers. A law against driving drunk only affects those who drive drunk. Laws against guns affect EVERYONE, not just the criminal. There's no collateral damage to making robbery illegal. There is collateral damage to putting restrictions on gun carrying.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami, a requirement to obey a generally applicable law is not a punishment.

[Macy's Window]

Wow, you really took a drubbing.

You should try thinking before your knee jerks next time.

[Macy's Window]

Did you read the article?

Arrests are up because the previous year, 2021, was a record low.

This is what the article says about the record low in 2021: "[In 2021] arrests and deportations by the agency plunged due to the coronavirus pandemic's impact on operations and new Biden administration policies that narrowed the population of deportable immigrants agents were instructed to prioritize for deportation."

So, your own link refutes your comment.

[Macy's Window]

Perhaps commenters should be required to post an understandable. comment.

[Henry]

Such as, perhaps, a law against sodomy? Miscegenation? Sitting at the front of a bus?

[Nige]

There is no collateral damage to putting restrictions on gun carrying and ownership except to profits by gun sellers.

[hoppy025]

You're a fucking imbecile.

[Nige]

I'm not sacrificing children for profit.

[Henry]

I think y’all are talking about two different shootings. He's talking about the shooter that got killed leaving the church by a neighbor with an AR15.

[hoppy025]

No, you're sacrificing children's anal virginity for your pleasure. Disgusting perverted groomer.

[Henry]

Put a "Gun Free Home" sign on your lawn and learn what you are sacrificing.