Responsible Gun Owner Kills Mall Shooter

Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
937
Copy and paste from Justfacts.org. I copied these because they provide the sources for their data and the methods that data was collected with. Even if these numbers are exaggerated some, it still totally disproves the idea that guns protecting people is a "rare" event. Feel free to debate.:

* Roughly 16,425 murders were committed in the United States during 2019. Of these, about 12,068 or 74% were committed with firearms.[205] [206] [207]


* In 1995, the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology published the results of a 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households. It found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year and excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[208]


* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 6.4 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2019.[209] [210] These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[211] [212] Of these, about 600,000 or 9% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[213]


* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[214] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[215]


* Based on data from a 1993 survey published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” over the previous five years. This amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year and excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[216]


* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[217]


* In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”[218] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to “convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence….”[219] This committee studied the issue of defensive gun use and reported:


  • “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed….”[220]
  • “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”[221]
  • ome scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey,” but this “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”[222] [223]
    [*]“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies….”[224]


* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the U.S. found:


  • 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.”
  • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.”
  • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.”[225]
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
875
Location
PA
Did they disclose what model of Glock he was using?

10 shots sounds like he emptied his 43X which is a small pistol. I don't think I could make 4 out of 10 hits at 40 yards with one of those let alone 8-10 under duress.

This will forever be the golden standard for responsible armed citizen. The report also said as soon as the shooter started taking fire he tried to get back to the bathroom. I imagine even if Eli hadn't taken him to pain town the shooter would have stopped shooting and retreated.

A dead mass shooter is better but I suspect even had Eli missed, the shooter would have been neutralized via his own puckered butt hole.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
937
^ that is the point that I made earlier that has been lost in all this....

Even if the return fire simply forced a retreat into the bathroom, it stopped the threat. That is entirely the point. A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.

No further discussion is needed. That alone is enough.

The ability the good guy showed in this was remarkable, but the truth is, all he had to do was return fire and neutralize the threat, which in this case would have been a retreat to the bathroom. Then let cops take over. We could all simply do that if we were carrying. We don't need to hit a coward, just get shots close. I would posit that most mass shooter types are actually trying to die, so most will not stop until shot dead or immobilized, but in most criminal instances, simply the threat of a gun is enough to deter.
 

Ucsdryder

WKR
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
6,645
No doubt, that's incredible. To be honest I thought the kid took a chance he needed to take and got lucky. Clearly he is very skilled.
Not sure if it’s been posted but it wasn’t 2 minutes either, it was 15 seconds from the time he left the bathroom until he was killed. Amazing he killed 3 people in that time, they must have been at point blank range. Imagine the outcome if the good guy hadn’t been there…or if uvalde cops were there.

The element of surprise and some excellent shooting overcame being outgunned.
 

MattB

WKR
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,743
Both of the "left wing" media outlets I referenced had an entire article about it, directly under the main article.

And both main articles mentioned that it was another patron with a gun.

Uninformed people will be uninformed, and others will allude to statistics that don't exist.
Chronology matters. If the initial story doesn't highlight it, especially in the headline, most people (6 in 10 according to one survey referenced in the link below) won't take the time to read the article and wouldn't learn that it was a good guy with a gun who stopped the killing. Many/perhaps most people get their news from news feeds via social media and the like, not directly from news bureau websites. So CNN having published follow-on articles - even if posted immediately below the lead on the CNN website - doesn't mean that will have the impact that you seem to think it does in terms of highlighting additional aspects of the incident.

This specific incident captured national attention and it also may have been the case that CNN felt it had to publish the follow-on articles (hours and even a days after the initial article) to compete with content from its competitors. Had this story not stayed relevant, I highly doubt that you would have seen stories on that angle from CNN and the like.

 
Joined
Feb 12, 2022
Messages
2,069
Chronology matters. If the initial story doesn't highlight it, especially in the headline, most people (6 in 10 according to one survey referenced in the link below) won't take the time to read the article and wouldn't learn that it was a good guy with a gun who stopped the killing. Many/perhaps most people get their news from news feeds via social media and the like, not directly from news bureau websites. So CNN having published follow-on articles - even if posted immediately below the lead on the CNN website - doesn't mean that will have the impact that you seem to think it does in terms of highlighting additional aspects of the incident.

This specific incident captured national attention and it also may have been the case that CNN felt it had to publish the follow-on articles (hours and even a days after the initial article) to compete with content from its competitors. Had this story not stayed relevant, I highly doubt that you would have seen stories on that angle from CNN and the like.

Do you really expect the headline to cover everything?

And I'm not saying that people are reading in depth, or multiple articles. I'm saying that the "liberal outlets aren't saying it was a good guy with a gun" statements are flat out wrong.
 

Antares

WKR
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
2,082
Location
Alaska
Maybe I should try stating another way my liberal s-hole comment to be more clear for you. I was speaking to the likelihood of an armed citizen intervening. Let's use an example of the liberal utopia of California. They lead the nation in mass shootings yet policies prevent/deter citizens from carrying or even owning firearm, thus intervention is fat less likely.
Same for Chicago, Houston, Philly, DC (all the places democrats have ran for the last 50 years). To just say that its rare for a citizen to stop a mass shooting is disingenuous when the policies in the places where such a high number occur make it illegal to do so.

I just want to make sure I understand your position. Your argument is that the most obvious solution to gun crime is... more guns? Do I have that right?
 

WCB

WKR
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
3,639
I just want to make sure I understand your position. Your argument is that the most obvious solution to gun crime is... more guns? Do I have that right?
Probably more of a position of don't restrict peoples ability to protect themselves. Why is the retort, when people don't like facts or studies provided to them about gun crimes, "you think more guns are the answer" with the next thought "you think everyone should own/carry a gun".

A simple thanks Gutshotem for the link to the study. I read it and may rethink my stance on the issue. But no, the easy way seems to be playing the "let me understand your stance because mine is on uneven ground and I want to play word games" game.
 

MattB

WKR
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,743
Do you really expect the headline to cover everything?
Do you honestly not understand the difference between the information conveyed to the average reader (who is statistically more likely than not going to read the article itself) by the following headlines?

"Shooting In Indiana Mall Leaves Three People Killed: Report"

And:
"Chief: 3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman"

Or:

Gunman Kills 3 at Indiana Mall Before He's Fatally Shot by Armed ‘Good Samaritan,' Police Say.​


Or:

Indiana shopping mall shooter shot dead by armed 'good Samaritan,' police say​


Do you think it is purely by accident that a left-leaning news organization's lead story on the topic left out the notion that the gunman was killed by an armed citizen? I personally do not, but I am fine with agreeing to disagree on that point.

Media bias is real and comes in all sorts of flavors.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
9,678
Do you honestly not understand the difference between the information conveyed to the average reader (who is statistically more likely than not going to read the article itself) by the following headlines?

"Shooting In Indiana Mall Leaves Three People Killed: Report"

And:
"Chief: 3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman"

Or:

Gunman Kills 3 at Indiana Mall Before He's Fatally Shot by Armed ‘Good Samaritan,' Police Say.​


Or:

Indiana shopping mall shooter shot dead by armed 'good Samaritan,' police say​


Do you think it is purely by accident that a left-leaning news organization's lead story on the topic left out the notion that the gunman was killed by an armed citizen? I personally do not, but I am fine with agreeing to disagree on that point.

Media bias is real and comes in all sorts of flavors.

Hey man, what are you doing? I thought you were 'spose to be one of the resident libruls here?😁
 

MattB

WKR
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,743
I just want to make sure I understand your position. Your argument is that the most obvious solution to gun crime is... more guns? Do I have that right?
I saw a very interesting chart in a California Rifle % Pistol Association magazine recently which shows that gun availability and murder rate do not appear to be correlated. So while more guns may not be the answer, more guns also does not appear to be a contributing factor to the problem.

The chart below is pretty busy, but it in essence shows that there is a very strong inverse correlation between the murder rate (green line) and the incarceration rate (red line). Handgun availability is the dotted grey line and as you can see does not appear to have a direct relationship with the murder rate. The colored vertical lines represent the implementation of state-level laws that added penalties to certain violent crimes (e.g. 3 strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, etc.).

The article starts on p. 33 in the link below.

 

Attachments

  • CRPA.PNG
    CRPA.PNG
    313.4 KB · Views: 28

MattB

WKR
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,743
Hey man, what are you doing? I thought you were 'spose to be one of the resident libruls here?😁
We cross-posted and I unwittingly further screwed up my rep...

I just want to know the truth and try to approach it from an apolitical and data-driven (when possible) perspective.
 

Antares

WKR
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
2,082
Location
Alaska
Probably more of a position of don't restrict peoples ability to protect themselves. Why is the retort, when people don't like facts or studies provided to them about gun crimes, "you think more guns are the answer" with the next thought "you think everyone should own/carry a gun".

A simple thanks Gutshotem for the link to the study. I read it and may rethink my stance on the issue. But no, the easy way seems to be playing the "let me understand your stance because mine is on uneven ground and I want to play word games" game.

The question wasn't directed at you, but thanks for chiming in. I appreciate your input.
 

260madman

WKR
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
Messages
1,211
Location
WI
Some people don’t realize that you are responsible for your own safety and there’s a lot of evil out there and life isn’t rose colored glasses. Better to have and not need than to need and not have. The cops aren’t going to save you when you need them to. They have a duty to serve but not protect.

I live in a small town with very little violent crime yet there’s a high percentage of people that carry everywhere. People that you don’t think would carry, do.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2022
Messages
2,069
Do you honestly not understand the difference between the information conveyed to the average reader (who is statistically more likely than not going to read the article itself) by the following headlines?

"Shooting In Indiana Mall Leaves Three People Killed: Report"

And:
"Chief: 3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman"

Or:

Gunman Kills 3 at Indiana Mall Before He's Fatally Shot by Armed ‘Good Samaritan,' Police Say.​


Or:

Indiana shopping mall shooter shot dead by armed 'good Samaritan,' police say​


Do you think it is purely by accident that a left-leaning news organization's lead story on the topic left out the notion that the gunman was killed by an armed citizen? I personally do not, but I am fine with agreeing to disagree on that point.

Media bias is real and comes in all sorts of flavors.
Web based media relies on clicks.

A 3 word headline immediately below the main 4 word headline (exactly what CNN/HuffPo did while approximating the word counts) conveys the exact same thing as your longer headlines and potentially drives more clicks.

I'm very well aware of media bias, that's why I get news from several news bureaus as well as various media outlets from all over the spectrum.
 

Rob5589

WKR
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
6,299
Location
N CA
I believe the "good guy with a gun..." gets misinterpreted as there needs to be more guns. There needs to be more good guys using/carrying their guns, not more guns in general. Everyone is their own self defender, nobody is coming to save you when things go sideways.
 

riversidejeep

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
May 15, 2021
Messages
285
Location
Far northwestern Komifornia
The kid did a great job getting that many hits at that distance. Seems 5-10 years ago an incident in Texas unfolded where a guy down the street 2-3 houses away whacked a perp with his .357 from like 165 yards away. Sometimes the light shines bright !
 
Top