Nine mass shootings that did not happen because someone was there to stop it, with a gun.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Nine mass shootings that didn’t happen because someone was there to stop it, with a gun.

The one consistent fact about all the recent mass shootings that did happen is that they occurred in government-imposed gun free zones.

Share

11 comments

  • Stu Harris

    Brilliant. Here are the tallies of dead and wounded — BY GUNS — not counting the perps:

    1 – 3,7
    2 – 1,3
    3 – 3,3
    4 – 2,?
    5 – 5,4
    6 – 0,?
    7 – 0,1
    8 – 2,1
    9 – 0,2

    TOTALS 16,21

    That’s 37 people who would not have been dead or injured if privately-owned guns were effectively controlled.

  • Edward

    Stu,

    In those nine cases alone, guns saved many lives, because the shooting stopped once an armed person arrived on the scene. Have you noticed that in most mass shootings, the shooting stops when someone with a gun arrives on the scene?

    Just what laws that would effectively control guns are not yet on the books? All of the current laws as well as resent proposed laws only prevent the law abiding from being able to save lives when a criminal shows up to shoot a bunch of people.

    What makes you think that lawbreakers will suddenly start obeying gun control laws if we add one (or some) more? We have added multitudes of gun control laws, the result of which was to disarm the responsible gun owners and leave the criminals and murderers free to go on shooting sprees, especially in areas where guns are not allowed (gun-free zones). Criminals and murderers tend to not shoot-up places where they know that there are a lot of guns, such as police stations.

    Perhaps the criminals and murderers tend to choose these gun-free zones specifically because they feel safe to shoot large numbers of people before the police arrive to stop them. It’s nice to know that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. It’s not so nice to know that when seconds count, your gun is in your car, and you have to escape through the gunfire before you can retrieve the one thing that stops these shooting sprees.

    I ponder what those numbers would have been had people with guns not arrived on these scenes to stop the killing sprees.

    I suppose that we could use some averages from some of the recent sprees. 26 at Sandy hill, 12 last Monday, 13 at Fort Hood, 12 at Aurora Colorado. That’s an average of 16 per incident. Taken over nine incidents, there could have been around 140 killed, so it looks to me like guns saved around 124 lives just in those nine cases alone. 124 lives that were saved because privately-owned — and effectively controlled — guns were available to stop the criminals/murderers.

    Should I go into the numbers of people who would not have been injured? Aurora alone left 70 injured.

    How many would have never been shot had there not been gun-free zones for shooters to feel safe in?

  • R. Cotour

    Firearms are a fact of life in America, the founders understood that it HAS TO be that way if they were to be successful in their scheme.

    What was their scheme? They gave the PEOPLE in no uncertain terms the ultimate power to take back their government when the inevitable happened. What is the inevitable? They understood that inevitably there would be corruption and abuse of power by the human beings that inhabited the government and the peoples freedoms would be taken away from them. In addition they understood that the people have to have the right to protect themselves from those who would do them and their family’s harm. (This was later strengthened in the Fourteenth Amendment.)

    The Second Amendment is nothing more or less than that. This conversation about if this happened or if that happened is not relevant, it is a distraction. It is a fact that unfortunate events like the one that happened the other day end when someone else shows up with a fire arm to stop it. The closer the fire arm to the event the sooner it stops. And I understand that to civilized, insulated and sophisticated people this harsh reality is very upsetting and counter intuitive.

    The real world sometimes visits the civilized world, it lurks around every corner, better for responsible people to be prepared to confront it and send it on its way than to not be prepared because of some politically correct talking point designed to disassemble that brilliant scheem which ensures the peoples freedoms.

    Its not perfect, but nothing is perfect, believe it or not this is what makes America exceptional.

  • Dean

    Facts mean nothing to those who want people disarmed so they are more easily oppressed

    There are hundreds of countries in the world who have “effective gun control” yet they have many murders and shootings

  • joe

    look up the Bath school murders in Bath township mi, over 40 murdered and 58 injured, one man, no guns, murdered his wife with a blunt object and set his farm ablaze, then off to school where he blew the school up, followed by his suicide where he blew himself up! if someone wants to do damage, a gun is not going to stop him unless its pointed at him!

  • Stu Harris

    “In those nine cases alone, guns saved many lives…”

    I understand, of course. It’s an extremely simple equation. My point is that if crazy people didn’t have access to guns (as in most of Europe) the body count would be even lower.

  • R. Cotour

    The fact is that Americans are mandated to have firearms as per their founding documents and there is a specific reason that it is that way. Guns exist, different kinds of people are going to have access to them, both legally and illegally. Are you willing to trade your sense of security from your fellow citizens for the real potential of your government coming to own you?

    Secondly, America is not Europe, we are different, understand the differences between the two and understand that the differences are by design, a very specific and purposeful design. Is Europe more civilized than America? That’s a very interesting question.

    There are tradeoffs, and they are not perfect, but let us not be naïve.

  • Crazy people in Europe don’t have access to guns, eh? Ask the 77 who are dead in Norway after Anders Behring Breivik’s mass murder. He might have been ruled sane, but neither you or I believe that.

  • R. Cotour

    GROSSPRIEL, Austria — In Austria, hunting game such as deer and wild boar is a hallowed way of life, one that follows age-old codes of honor and requires a license bestowed only after passing rigorous exams. In that exalted world, Alois Huber was a brazen outlaw even before he went on a murderous rampage that left four people dead….

    So much for the European ideal.

  • Dean

    Idiotic assertion

    Restrict access for all to try to accommodate lunatics…. Good liberal thinking.

    How about shooting the lunatics dead the moment they start harming people? That would reduce the “body count” too, like has been proven here in America, real world, not liberal theory.

  • Dean,

    I probably agree with you on most points, but here at Behind the Black I demand civility in debate. Please try to be a bit more polite in future posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *