New FBI data Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017

[SKILCZ]

1) Mass shootings in "gun-free zones," by definition, are not likely to be stopped by a civilian with a firearm as civilians (i.e. victims) are disarmed by law.

2) The FBI states that there were 50 "active shooter incidents" in two years. Contrast that to the outrageously high numbers of "school shootings" and "mass shootings" routinely given by anti-gun groups based on arbitrary definitions created by a blogger and others to skew the numbers in favor of their argument to repeal the 2A.

1. Of note, seven (7) "active shooter incidents" occurred in "education environments" in two years. Contrast that with the number of "school shootings" claimed by anti-gun groups over those two years.

It would be interesting to see how these data compare to the mass murder/mass killing numbers using the original definition (4 or more people killed, not counting the shooter) vs. the lowered threshold of the Obama 2013 definition (3 or more people killed, counting the shooter).

Key points from the the publication:

• The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms. The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.

  It sounds as though even if not one person was shot, it could still count as an "active shooter incident."
  

• Excluded from this report are gang- and drug-related shootings and gun-related incidents that appeared not to have put other people in peril (e.g., the accidental discharge of a firearm in a bar).

  These are often included in anti-gun statistics. Kudos to the FBI for excluding them.
  

• Casualty numbers were dramatically higher due to three incidents: the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada; the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida; and the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

  Guns were banned at the latter two, and guns would have been useless at the former, regardless of whether they were banned from a large concert venue. The casualty numbers from Vegas also presume to be all from gunshot wounds and do not specify trampling, etc. The latter event (Sutherland Springs) was effectively stopped by an armed civilian neighbor.

• Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives.

  That's an 80% success rate for people trying to stop these scum bags. Virtually everyone would rather have a gun in trying to stop them rather than being unarmed.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, that WAS my point. If there were armed citizens in 8% of the cases, and in each case the shooter was stopped that would be 100% effectiveness.

What about in the cases where people were armed and present but didn't act? No numbers on that.
Of course there was the Dallas Protest shooting where the gunman opened fire on COPS. They were all armed. Gunman was stopped with a BOMB, not with guns.
In Houston, the CCW was shot through the legs and crippled while trying to stop the gunman. The CCW failed. He never fired a shot. The gunman was later stopped by dozens of cops.

 

[MedWheeler]

Double Naught Spy writes:

Of course there was the Dallas Protest shooting where the gunman opened fire on COPS. They were all armed. Gunman was stopped with a BOMB, not with guns.

Actually, I believe he was stopped some time before the bomb was delivered. After the shootings, he fled and took cover (because COPS returned fire, which constitutes "acting", and at least one of them hit the gunman) and a standoff ensued. Extended negotiations began to deteriorate, and it was then that the decision was made that he had to be disabled before he could resume being a threat. That's when the bomb was delivered. The gunman reportedly fired on the robot bearing it, and the bomb went off as intended, killing him.

So, the gunman was actually stopped twice while firing his weapon, once by return fire, and then again by the bomb's blast.

 

[SKILCZ]

What about in the cases where people were armed and present but didn't act? No numbers on that.
Of course there was the Dallas Protest shooting where the gunman opened fire on COPS. They were all armed. Gunman was stopped with a BOMB, not with guns.
In Houston, the CCW was shot through the legs and crippled while trying to stop the gunman. The CCW failed. He never fired a shot. The gunman was later stopped by dozens of cops.

CCW holders are not required to use their firearms in a shooting. It is a right to be carrying and to have the option to respond with a firearm, but if they choose to get their families safely out of there while armed and not engage the shooter, that is an alternate option. For that matter, police have no obligation to protect any individual (Warren v. D.C.). That a CCW holder is present during a shooting and does not draw his/her gun or fails to successfully stop a shooter is irrelevant to the 2A RKBA; it is a right, not an obligation.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Double Naught Spy writes:

Actually, I believe he was stopped some time before the bomb was delivered. After the shootings, he fled and took cover (because COPS returned fire, which constitutes "acting", and at least one of them hit the gunman) and a standoff ensued. Extended negotiations began to deteriorate, and it was then that the decision was made that he had to be disabled before he could resume being a threat. That's when the bomb was delivered. The gunman reportedly fired on the robot bearing it, and the bomb went off as intended, killing him.

So, the gunman was actually stopped twice while firing his weapon, once by return fire, and then again by the bomb's blast.

My understanding was that he continued fighting up to and including when he barricaded. Saying he was stopped twice is a bit silly. Obviously, he wasn't stopped the first time because he continued to fight and he killed officers while fighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers

CCW holders are not required to use their firearms in a shooting. It is a right to be carrying and to have the option to respond with a firearm, but if they choose to get their families safely out of there while armed and not engage the shooter, that is an alternate option. For that matter, police have no obligation to protect any individual (Warren v. D.C.). That a CCW holder is present during a shooting and does not draw his/her gun or fails to successfully stop a shooter is irrelevant to the 2A RKBA; it is a right, not an obligation.

That is all well and good, but if you look closely, I was addressing the issue of the use of statistics and made no proclamations about obligations or rights one way or the other.

 

[MedWheeler]

Double Naught Spy, I wasn't being "silly"; I was just being "technical."

There is nothing in the source provided (which happens to be the same source I used) that says Johnson continued shooting during the extended negotiations described below, which began after all officers who were shot had been so. So, it is technically true that, while barricaded and "negotiating", he had stopped firing.

He started again, according to the source we both used, on the robot bearing the explosive device. I think it's safe to say that he was stopped by the device's detonation.

From the source:

Standoff and shooter's death[edit]

Officers opened negotiations for surrender but Johnson said he would speak to black police officers only. Johnson stated that he had acted alone and was not part of any group. According to Chief Brown, Johnson appeared delusional during his standoff; "We had negotiated with him for about two hours, and he just basically lied to us, playing games, laughing at us, singing, asking how many did he get and that he wanted to kill some more." By about 2:30 a.m.,[27] Chief Brown saw no possibility of negotiating further[28] and made the decision to use a bomb disposal remote control vehicle armed with about 1 pound (0.45 kilograms) of C-4 explosive. The plan was to move the robot to a point against a wall facing Johnson and then detonate the explosives.[25][29][30][31][32][33] Johnson saw the robot approaching and fired repeatedly at it in an attempt to stop it.[24] However, the robot exploded as intended, killing Johnson immediately.

At any rate, I was addressing the implication that the cops' presence and their having been armed had no effect on the death/injury toll; that it took a bomb to save lives (at that point, it did, as it was too risky to send a human to approach.) I disagree, as I believe had none of the cops been armed when they were targeted, the outcome would have been vastly different. Remember the Charles Whitman incident; even though the citizens returning fire could not hit him from where they were, they were able to keep him pinned down, reducing his ability to strike more targets.

 

[fastbolt]

I'd be cautious in trying to read too much into statistical compilations of shooting incidents, even if "active shooters".

There are some lessons to be learned, obviously, but not all of them are necessarily, or exclusively, tactics and equipment driven.

While we can't know the particular motivations of such people (active shooters) until usually after the incidents (even if then), at the time of the on-view event it's still someone with a gun trying to kill numbers of people, which is what we must address at the time its occurring.

One of the things I usually take from official reports of this nature is that all of the time I've invested in developing my observation/awareness, and developing and refining my shooting skills and knowledge of tactics, hopefully hasn't been wasted. The better prepared and trained someone is in reacting to such an incident, and the more knowledgeable and able to make good decisions under stress, the better prepared they may hopefully be if ever required to utilize that training and preparation.

Possessing good "gun handling skills" arguably may not offset or diminish the severity of making all the wrong decisions under the stress of an active event. The Rule of the Seven P's and TANSTAAFL still bears some careful consideration.

 

[labnoti]

Careful with that. While 8% were stopped by armed citizens, the same percentage were stopped by unarmed citizens. The key is action and addressing the threat and in some cases you can talk the person down and in others you have to put them down.

The way I see it, 92% were stopped by gunfire or captured under the threat of gunfire.