An FBI study recently confirmed what 2nd Amendment supporters have been saying for years – armed citizens make America safer.
Of the 50 active shooter incidents that occurred in 2016 and 2017 the report shows that in a majority of those incidents involving an active shooter, someone used a weapon to stop them.
An active shooter incident as defined by the Bureau is one that involves one are more persons who are actively engaged in a killing or attempt to kill those in a populated area.
Some distinctions the FBI’s makes in its definition of an Active Shooter include:
1. The attacker must use a firearm.
2. Domestic incidents are not included. An active shooter event must be one in which the attacker endangers strangers, not only their own family members.
3. Gang-related violence is excluded from the report.
4. Both citizens and law enforcement personnel have to have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.
According to the report, 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. The enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.
In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting.
These empirical facts stand in direct opposition to the narrative one hears among liberals in Washington and the mainstream press. Instead, they ignore the facts and continue their call to disarm law-abiding citizens.
Timothy Hsiao of The Federalist believes that such facts should not be the final word in the gun debate. He isn’t saying that “empirical findings aren’t important” but just not relevant to the debate for the right to bear arms. It is our fundamental right to self-defense the 2nd Amendment assures us of.
“What matters is not the risk (or lack thereof) that guns pose to society, but simply whether guns are a reasonable means of self-defense,” wrote Hsiao, adding that to defend one’s life is a basic dignity that cannot be taken away in the name of “social utility.”
Hsiao reminds us that our right to life, to defend ourselves when endangered, is a fundamental dignity no matter the “outcome of a cost-benefit analysis.” This report from the FBI only simply provides gun-rights advocates with additional weight to their argument.
In one national survey after another, results show that defensive gun usage by victims were almost as common as offensive uses by criminals. Millions of Americans have legal permits to carry firearms, and the great majority of them cite self-defense as the overriding reason for doing so.
Paul Hsieh of Forbes writes, “The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger” but reminds criminals, “innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense.”
Liberals want 2nd Amendment advocates to focus on their narrative that showcases the harm guns can inflict on innocent people and according to Hsieh that misses the point.
“The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented,” he advocates, “Not criminals killed.”
Former National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre has been famously quoted as saying, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”
During a 2018 interview on ABC News, Liza Gold, a clinical professor of psychology at Georgetown University’s School of medicine claimed the NRA was “deathly afraid” what legitimate firearms research would show about gun violence and access to firearms by law-abiding gun owners.
She said of LaPierre’s quote, “It’s a good slogan … I have yet to see the evidence base for that claim.”
It seems we have the evidence so what say you now Professor Gold?