Massive errors in FBIs Active Shooting Reports regarding cases where civilians stop attacks:

Source: https://crimeresearch.org/2022/10/massive-errors-in-fbis-active-shooting-reports-regarding-cases-where-civilians-stop-attacks-instead-of-4-4-the-correct-number-is-at-least-34-4-in-2021-it-is-at-least-49-1-excluding-gun-free-zon/
Published: Oct 6, 2022
Author: Mike Rivero
Post Date: 2022-10-06 18:03:15 by Horse
Views: 189

Instead of 4.4%, the correct number is at least 34.4%. In 2021, it is at least 49.1%. Excluding gun-free zones, it averaged over 50%.

The shooting that killed three people and injured another at a Greenwood, Indiana, mall on July 17 drew broad national attention because of how it ended – when 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, carrying a licensed handgun, fatally shot the attacker.

While Dicken was praised for his courage and skill – squeezing off his first shot 15 seconds after the attack began, from a distance of 40 yards – much of the immediate news coverage drew from FBI-approved statistics to assert that armed citizens almost never stop such attackers: “Rare in US for an active shooter to be stopped by bystander” (Associated Press); “Rampage in Indiana a rare instance of armed civilian ending mass shooting” (Washington Post); and “After Indiana mall shooting, one hero but no lasting solution to gun violence” (New York Times).

Evidence compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives. Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: StraitGate    To: Horse (#0)

I wonder why this article uses our enemies' term for an armed citizen at least half a dozen times? Cops and other government agents call citizens who are not government employees "civilians" as a psy-op.

In the United States, a civilian is (or at least was) by definition somebody who is not a member of the Armed Forces of the United States. But years ago cops started calling all non-cops "civilians" -- as if they weren't civilians. All the mass media quickly signed on to this psy-op, which facilitated the militarization of police forces federal, state, and local, exalted armed government heroes far above us mere mundanes, made "officer safety" Priority 1, and placed our necks under the jackboots of the New World Order's Police State thugs.

Words have meaning. I don't trust anybody who calls citizens "civilians" except when discriminating legitimate military people from non-military people. Your cousin in the Army and your brother who works at the car wash are both citizens, but only your brother is a civilian. Your cousin was a civilian, but ceased being a civilian when he joined the Army. When he gets out of the Army he'll be a civilian again -- but he'll get a 10% discount at Lowes.

StraitGate posted on 2022-10-06 19:44:05   Reply   Private Reply


#2: Esso    To: StraitGate, 4um (#1)

In the United States, a civilian is (or at least was) by definition somebody who is not a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Thanks for bring that up Strait, it's always bugged me.

But years ago cops started calling all non-cops "civilians" -- as if they weren't civilians. All the mass media quickly signed on to this psy-op, which facilitated the militarization of police forces federal, state, and local, exalted armed government heroes far above us mere mundanes, made "officer safety" Priority 1, and placed our necks under the jackboots of the New World Order's Police State thugs.

Esso posted on 2022-10-06 20:05:12   Reply   Private Reply