3

I would be interested in what people who have first-hand experience in mass shootings think about the idea that a good guy with a gun can usually stop a bad guy with a gun. Are there any surveys about that?

The closest thing I've found is a survey of incarcerated felons done by Crime Prevention Research Center, and most of the incarcerated felons think that abolishing gun control would lead to fewer mass shootings. However, I'd guess most of incarcerated felons don't have any actual experience with mass shootings.

FlatAssembler
  • 1,230
  • 6
  • 17
  • 1
    Despite their name, CPRC is more of an advocacy than real research group, as I understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott "The board of directors for the organization includes guitarist Ted Nugent, conservative talkshow host Lars Larson and former sheriff David Clarke." – the gods from engineering Oct 12 '23 at 15:09
  • 3
    I know a lot of the survivors of the Parkland high school shooting became gun control advocates, and even formed an advocacy group, but that's one example and not a wider pattern. – F1Krazy Oct 12 '23 at 15:46
  • It might be media bias, but I can't recall any interviews of survivors where they expressed any inclination towards reducing gun control. – Barmar Oct 12 '23 at 16:51
  • @Barmar I'd imagine most of the people who survived a mass shooting stopped by an armed civilian are pro-gun. – FlatAssembler Oct 13 '23 at 00:31
  • 2
    @FlatAssembler How many "good guys with a gun" have actually stopped a "bad guy with a gun"? – Barmar Oct 13 '23 at 00:35
  • 2
    @FlatAssembler And if any of their friends or family were killed before the good guy stopped the bad guy, I'll bet they still wish the bad guy had been prevented from shooting in the first place. – Barmar Oct 13 '23 at 00:36
  • @FlatAssembler Pro-gun people like to point out "more people would have been shot if not for the armed civilian who stopped the shooter". Anti-gun people will say "fewer people would have been shot if the shooter were prevented from having a gun in the first place." So it comes down to whether you think the victims before the civilian stopped the shooter are an acceptable loss to preserve the 2nd amendment rights. – Barmar Oct 13 '23 at 00:44
  • 1
    @Barmar I think the pro-gun people are saying "What makes you think that stricter gun control laws would have prevented the shooter from getting the gun?". – FlatAssembler Oct 13 '23 at 01:23
  • 2
    @Barmar It's hard to tell how many good guys with a gun have stopped a bad guy with a gun. Let's limit the discussion to mass shootings. FBI estimates that civilians stop mass shootings in around 5% of cases, Crime Prevention Research Center estimates it's around 40%. – FlatAssembler Oct 13 '23 at 07:03
  • 2
    @FlatAssembler That is in no small part due to the 1996 Dickey amendment, which created a chilling effect on any research that might potentially end up with a pro-gun-control message. – Carduus Oct 13 '23 at 13:17
  • 1
    @FlatAssembler Australia in the late 80's / early 90's started having a mass shooting problem. They implemented widespread gun restrictions, and saw an immediate decline, to approximately nothing, of mass shootings, and a decline of other gun homicide. The UK had one mass shooting in the 90's, implemented strict gun controls, and haven't had a mass shooting since. Nobody having guns is much safer than "good guys" having guns – Caleth Oct 13 '23 at 15:44

0 Answers0