Study Shows Legally Armed Citizens Are Very Effective At Stopping Active Shooters

The report says armed civilians have stopped attacks at a rate far higher than figures tallied by the FBI.

by Law Officer Law Officer

A new study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows that legally armed citizens are very effective in stopping homicidal active shooters. The analysis also revealed that “Massive errors” in FBI active shooter reports have resulted in the federal law enforcement agency seriously undercounting how many times a “good guy with a gun” has come to the aid to stop or diminish the destruction of an active shooting.

The CPRC report says armed civilians have stopped attacks at a rate far higher than the mere 4.6 percent that the FBI tallied. In fact, during encounters that occurred outside of “gun-free zones,” an amazing 63 percent of attacks were stopped by legally armed citizens last year, according to the findings.

The CPRC concluded that “law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare.” For example, overall from 2014 to 2022 the actual figure is 35.7 percent of active shooters stopped by armed civilians, almost eight times the number cited by the FBI, Warner Todd Huston noted in his commentary published by The Western Journal.

Carl Moody is the CPRC's research director. Taking aim at a talking point frequently purported by anti-Second Amendment pundits, he noted “the data put together by the CPRC show that an armed citizen has yet to accidentally shoot an innocent bystander.”

It makes people wonder why there is a huge discrepancy between the FBI and CPRC numbers?

According to the CPRC, “the FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. But it does not include those it deems related to other criminal activity, such as a robbery or fighting over drug turf.”

Moreover, the CPRC asserts the FBI failed to note civilian involvement in some incidents and misidentified civilians in other encounters.

One glaring example of how the FBI skews its data occurred at a Texas church in 2019, Huston highlighted in his commentary.

On Dec. 29, 2019 in White Settlement, Texas, a church member, Jack Wilson, pulled out his handgun and fatally shot the attacker.

However, the FBI categorized him as a “security guard” rather than a civilian. This is not accurate. Wilson was simply a member of the church who volunteered to provide security. He wasn't engaged as a contract security guard, and he wasn't even the only congregant who drew a weapon in response to the shooter.

According to Huston, the CPRC report said the FBI's data is filled with errors like this. The group also pointed out that the FBI's numbers are misleading because “they ignore that about half of these attacks occur where guns are banned, so law-abiding citizens who obey those rules wouldn't have a chance to stop them.”

“Between 2014 and 2022, citizens stopped 104 out of 204 potential or actual mass shootings where we could identify that guns were allowed in the area,” the report noted. “So 51% of attacks were stopped by people legally carrying concealed handguns.”

“The numbers indicate if we didn't have gun-free zones, we would have more people stopping these attacks.”

The research center sought a response from the FBI, but the feds did not entertain their questions. Furthermore, the bureau wouldn't even address the subject when The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler reached out for comment, Huston reported.

In conclusion, the CPRC study blows away the Left's nonsense that these incidents are rarely stopped by a “good guy with a gun.”

Find the original article in its entirety on Law Officer.