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?
Why is this report not splashed across every media platform in the country? I think we all know why.
Remember this : A “Gun Free Zone” is a “Target Rich Environment”.
I have carried for more than 50 years and the people near and around me never realized just how much safer and protected they were.
You’re Welcome.
A Good Guy.
Interesting stuff… do you have a link to the actual report?
I would like to a copy of this FBI report and would like to know why it is not being reported to the American People on a much larger scale.
Sincerely,
Leonard Barnett
How do you get a copy of the FBI report?
It has been told by the liberals that we give up our weapons – NO to that – only if the police can arrive at a resident or place of armed disturbance with in 10 seconds – then we shall not give up our weaponry! HOORAH!!!
Time to eliminate gun free zones, AKA killing fields. Demand this of your politicians!
When seconds count the police are only minutes away…
Some times 5 to 10 minute’s away,a person with a weapon against the bad guy can make a difference in life or death in that length of time.
This is a good day for all gun owners thank you, GOD!!
Seeing is believing and if this is true,then why don’t we have National Right to carry❓
Ganea nicolae ionut str digului nr 15 my federal bureau of investigation personaly bureau my work home România sua 0749635044
25-01-2007 my promivation examen usdoj.gov 37 stage fbi 36 stage Cia sua agent federal double fbi cia sua
The argument that “People don’t need guns for protection. That’s what the police are there for.” Is utterly foolish and, at the same time, vicious. The people who use that line don’t give a hang about public safety. They only care about disarming the citizenry so that they can control them with little resistance. This is what socialism/communism is all about. Just imagine what a huge boost of power total disarmament would give our liberal proponents. They already exercise a lot of power the Constitution does not provide for by ignoring it at their frequent convenience. Why would anyone voluntarily give up their only means of protection from violence and tyranny? The police can’t help in either case, unless you have one living with you.
In my opinion every law abiding citizens,that do not have violent felonies on there records should be allowed to carry a firearm.One of the main reasons is because of all imigrants that Obama allow to be scattered all over Our Nation,but also because of all the illigal alien’s being allowed to enter Our America and scattering to who knows where⁉️
When it comes to firearm ownership so many don’t remember or perhaps weren’t around when Japan had plans to invade the West Coast. Admiral Yamamoto said, “Guns are as thick as the blades of grass. Casualties would be unacceptable.” It’s been said the Second Amendment was written to protect the public from what’s being done by the Socialists (Communists) on both sides of the isle in Congress. Also, I find myself wondering how many amendments were passed before the second. Seems to me it might just be the First Amendment. So perhaps the right to bear arms has a dual purpose.
Now if our state legislators would only read this report!, and RETURN our right to ‘keep and bear arms’! The liberals have the media WELL trained to flog anti-gun articles, especially about the icky-ole AR-15, which THEY label an “assault weapon!” (HElLL, even a ROCK can be an “assault weapon), however!, the sheeple believe all this guff!
* tap tap * hey …. American Gun News…. do you have a link to the report. Seriously I’d like to share this… but I’d *like* to share the report… or at least verify veracity of the report. Do you have a link?
[…] FBI Releases Statement Stressing the IMPORTANCE of Armed Citizens for American Safety […]
A Link to the actual report would have been useful.