Thursday, January 3, 2013

Do Armed Citizens Actually Succeed in Stopping Criminals?

Here's one case where an armed citizen stopped a robbery, with the incident captured on video:

My progressive friends love to find ways of dismissing the abundant examples of such things.  They're pretty tricky about it, too.  For example, one statistic trotted out again after the Sandy Hook shooting was the dearth of examples of mass murders in the U.S. that were stopped by armed citizens.  A mass murder is defined (by the FBI) as a murder with four or more victims.  So the statistic cited is that very few (3, to be precise, since 1970) cases are on record where an armed citizen stopped a murderous shooter after the murderer had already killed 4 or more people.  However...there are dozens of cases (150 to 200, depending on the source, since 1970) where armed citizens stopped murderous shooters after they shot at least one person, but before they killed 4 or more people. 

Well, all righty then, progressives.  You go right ahead and cite your statistic, and go right ahead disarming yourselves.  I'll think of it another way.  Would I rather be (a) in an unarmed crowd, or (b) an armed crowd, when some nutcase opens fire toward me?  That's a pretty easy question for me to answer!

Here's some more reading about mass killings stopped by armed citizens and the general effects of armed citizens on crime rates.

Debbie and I are going to go live in a state with “must issue” concealed carry laws...

No comments:

Post a Comment