Media Bias Fact Check Launched in November 2015. One of our first fact checks was in December 2015 when we did a fact check looking at FBI statistics regarding armed citizens stopping or limiting mass shootings. As I was doing some house cleaning on the website I found this old fact check and decided to republish it as nothing has really changed since then. The numbers are still close if not the same. Here is the fact check:
Certain media personalities and sources claim that if more citizens were armed we would have less mass shootings. We decided to check and see if armed citizens have stopped mass shootings. While some mass shootings have been stopped the number is very low. First the numbers: According to FBI crime analysis, of 110 active shooter events 49% ended before police arrived. Of the cases that ended before the police arrived, 67 percent (34) ended with attackers stopping themselves via suicide (29 cases) or by leaving the scene (5 cases). In the other 33 percent (17) of the cases that ended before the police arrived, the potential victims at the scene stopped the shooter themselves. Most commonly they physically subdued the attacker (14 cases), but three cases involved people at the scene shooting the perpetrator to end the attack. According to these numbers citizens with guns have ended a mass shooting 3% of the time. For the sake of fact checking we will use the FBI statistics, but several sources have documented up to 10 times where a mass shooting was ended by an armed citizen. Again, for statistical purposes we rely on the FBI as an authority. The bottom line is that armed citizens have certainly prevented more casualties in mass shootings, but the number is statistically very low and the majority of the time unarmed citizens subdue the shooter. Therefore, we rate the claim that more armed citizen’s equals less mass shootings as MOSTLY FALSE.
By Dave Van Zandt
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources
Re: Armend Citizens, Less Shootings. It looks like Dave Van Zandt has a math problem. “First the numbers: According to FBI crime analysis, of 101 active shooter events 33% were stopped by citizens before law enforcement arrived. Of these 17 times” ––– Wouldn’t 33% of 101 be closer to 33 times? Not 17, since 33% is 1/3 of 100.
Thank you. I fixed it. I left out some important numbers that would make it clear.
How many of those shootings occurred in ‘gun-free zones’ that allowed criminals to kill law-abiding citizens?
That must play a part in the numbers of armed civilians who followed the law and left their firearms at home or in their vehicles.
Yes, that would certainly impact the numbers. Unfortunately, there isn’t a clear definition or number to go by. Pro-gun researchers such as John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center puts the number at 96% occurring in Gun Free Zones. This number has been widely disputed due to the criteria used. Everytown for Gun Safety puts the number at 13%. They are pro-gun control and use their own calculations which are questionable. For the purpose of the fact check above, we simply looked at what actually occurred, which is 3% of mass shootings ended by an armed civilian. Obviously, there are a whole host of variable to consider, but this is what is actually known.
The big problem with this analysis is, to be factually true, the pro-gun, pro-self defense side has to prove the unproveable.
If an armed citizen stops a crime (500K per year on the low side, up to 2M times per the CDC, usually by presenting the gun without further violence), there would have to be evidence that the crime stopped would have become a mass shooting (4+ shot) but for the armed citizen. That would require some sort of psychic ability beyond human comprehension.
There would have to be a way to gather evidence on potential mass shooters who pick their target based on vulnerability and likelihood of armed resistance. This, too, would require a psychic.
So, instead, the pro-self defense side is left with instances like the Appalachian Law School shooting, which was stopped by armed students. It is left with the testimony of Suzanne Hupp following the Luby’s massacre.
So, is it factually unproveable? Sure. But is it an untrue statement? Unprovable, but the assertion is still made based on collective experience and principle.
Unfortunately this doesn’t really disprove the claim. My personal opinion is that arming more citizens is a truly dumb idea but that is based upon intuition, not data and this does not enhance the data side unfortunately. Of course, the fact that one or more supposedly trained deputies would not initially enter Parkland helps support the case that the average gun-carrying citizen would be even less effective, but still as hoc support.
If you look at the data presented critically, what I would argue it says based upon what it reviews is “given the level of armed citizens today, they have been ineffective overall at stopping most active shooter incidents. That is about it actually. The data presented does not in any way support the contention that more armed citizens would reduce mass shootings, nor does it support a claim that armed citizens are less effective. In fact, if you could show that there were exactly three incidents where armed citizens were present (unlikely), you might be able to make the claim that in 100% of the cases where there were armed citizens, they were helpful, while in far fewer %’s police were helpful.
This is why I dislike the claim “fake news” which sounds more like nyaa Nysa than a valid claim in most cases. There are a lot of potential claims of fake news in this article. But the concept of fake news is a little broad….
And forgive the typos above. Doing this on a phone is tough….
Jim H, you’re darn right – typing these things out on
Ok, I hate typing on phones. This comment app is weird.
As for armed citizens, former cop here… where I worked, it was common. No big issues for us, but it saved some lives.
Just a comment about the title. As it stands, it seems to assert what is actually being explored. Turning it into a question solves that, and doesn’t bias the headline toward any particular outcome.
The problem with this fact check, is the fact that many mass shooting occur in gun free zones. This gives armed citizens a very unfair chance to prove their point. If we had no gun free zones, the numbers would be completely diffrent.
As the La times reports http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html
“But an analysis of five years’ worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year.”
67,740 thousand cases of self defense by a gun a year. This is only reported cases. Additionally if we had no gun free zones, the number would be much much higher. Guns save more lives than they take if you discount suicides. In 2012 according to fbi.gov about 1600 people were killed by knives and other sharp objects. Rifles (including hunting) took only about 400 lives.
We need to have effective regulation, but any ban would be foolish and would ignore statistics.
What about events that could have become mass shootings but the killers were stopped by resistance on part of potential victims resulting in the killer fleeing, surrendering, killing him/herself or being killed by a citizen? Does the F.B.I. collect statistics on that? If not, who does that can be considered a reliable and trustworthy source?
To say this is mostly false completely disregards a lot of needed data and acts as this is a simple issue with only 1 or 2 determining factors. When the reality is that the cause of mass shootings (and violent crime in general) is an extremely complex issue that has many, many factors that need to be taken into consideration.
The reason why this is a problem is by only using two data points you can manipulate (intentionally or not), the results one way or another. For instance I’m sure you could show that social media causes mass shootings by comparing the amount of mass shootings today and the amount of people on social media vs. the amounts 20 years ago. I could draw a similar correlation between psychotropic medications and mass shootings, media coverage and mass shootings, number of guns per capita vs mass shootings,etc., etc., etc.
Or here is a even better one. The fact that the majority of mass shootings have happened in “””Gun Free Zones””” and not a single mass shooting has happened at an NRA/gun convention is unequivocal proof that gun ownership not only stops mass shootings, but also prevents them from ever happening.
See how quickly one can create bullshit arguments when not all of the pertinent information is taken into account?
Mr. Van Zandt, I find your analysis extremely problematic because you seem to habitually avoid the relevant counterfactual.
In the 51% of the cases where the police ended the attack, how many people died first? What do you suppose the body count would have been if there had been one or more armed civilian defenders present before the police arrived?
You dismiss the cases where the shootings ended by “themselves” as if it’s “problem solved”. How many people were murdered in each case before the shooter walked away or took his own life? What do you suppose would have been the body count in each case if there had been one or more armed civilian defenders present to create a time pressure for the attacker?
You state that in 33% of the cases regular citizens acted to stop the murder. This demonstrates the mettle of average people when confronted with a life threatening situation. You state that it is a minority of cases when these defenders used firearms. Do you suggest this is because the majority of the defenders were opposed to using the most effective tool available? Or because they simply did not have a firearm available? How much faster could these defenders have acted and how fewer people would have died if they all had a firearm in their possession?
It is inherently obvious and unavoidable that a greater number of armed citizen defenders would result in fewer mass shootings due to deterrence, and less civilian deaths in each due to active opposition. The only way this claim could possibly be false is if the number of murderous attackers rose in proportion to the effectiveness of the armed opposition. Since the people who are motivated to carry out these attacks seem to have little problem doing so, we have no reason to suspect that the frequency of attacks would rise even higher. Thus the balance would necessarily be tilted in favor of the law abiding citizen.
Hi Aharon Grossman. That sounds like a decent theory, and it’s been proposed many times before. Yet it seems no less hypothetical, despite being a fair guestion to ask.
What I’m wondering is: By estimates, there are about 300 million legal guns in the U.S. – if citizens being armed and carrying is such a sure solution – why hasn’t this most massive proliferation of arms in this country already been making a huge difference in the curbing of violent crime? — The only thing measurable that has been happening in parallel with it has been the U.S. having some of the highest gun crime rates and gun-inflicted suicide rates in the world. — Where are the lower crime benefits that so many no-limits gun advocates so consistently use as a rationale? — It just looks like more crimes are happening by way of legal gun owners – like the Vegas shooter, who amassed an obscene amount of legal weapons, living a relatively law abiding life up until his last hour of murderous rampage.
Good guys with a gun seems sound in theory, but among 100 million legal gun owners with 300 million guns, the arms race, on one hand, has yet to produce the thwarting of crime as predicted, while on the other, it seems more mass shooting are occurring with legally purchased guns. — I find this both perplexing and disturbing.
Definitely the analysis is MOSTLY FALSE. Mass attacks are not thwarted because law abiding citizens lock up their arms rather than carry them around. Even than, that some have been stopped should be an indication of the efficacy of such a strategy. That said, I am not in favour of legally requiring people to carry because the collateral damage would not be worth it. However, I think the incidence of these attacks would drop substantially.
This is an extremely disingenuous attempt at pushing for more gun control. This is why I have a problem with these “fact check” or “media bias” sites. Such sites still have a clear bias. The problem here is they parade around as the absolute truth with cherry-picked data.
The fact that the vast majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones was completely ommitted. There was no accounting for the 500,000 to 2.5 million estimated defensive uses of firearms. The ONLY thing that was considered was when a good guy with a gun stopped what was ALREADY a mass shooting. It doesn’t take into consideration the people who stopped what was POTENTIALLY a mass shooting (i.e. someone started shooting at people with the intent to kill as many as possible but was stopped instantly).
It was stated that a majority of the time unarmed citizens were the ones stopping mass shootings. Was the number of times they were in a gun free zone accounted for? If less that 5% of mass shootings occur in areas where armed citizens are, wouldn’t 3% stopping rate of ALL mass shooting actually be pretty good? It’s like saying the US has more gun violance than anywhere, but forgetting that gun violance is simply violance. When you look at violance country to country the US doesn’t rank bad at all. Again, this is clearly “cherry-picked” that is used by someone parroting what they heard or not choosing to dig deep enough into the subject to realize there isn’t an absolute truth. If you want to be more reputable as an “end all be all” fact checker, you have to be much more thorough in your analysis and be willing to admit when you don’t have an absolute truth. This article is lazy at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.
Since publishing this a few years ago this study was done: https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542
Not only a math problem here but also a grammar problem. A tiny problem in the biggest scheme, unconscionable in those who fancy themselves writers.
This is nonsense. This is not a “fact check”. It’s not even a coherent argument. It is essentially this: “The number of mass shootings stopped by armed citizens is low therefore more armed citizens don’t prevent mass shootings”.
I am going to assume this “fact check” is merely a product of incompetency instead of bias and disingenuity.
This is biased.
The fact that 98-99% of so-called “mass shootings” and shootings in general occurring in “gun-free zones” only points to one conclusion…the gun-free zone signs only apply to the law-abiding, put simply, criminals don’t care about signs, or laws for that matter.
And these so-called “mass shootings” has no clear legal definition, which allows media outlets to change the meaning as it fits their narrative. However, they tend to avoid legal and clear definitions already noted with”mass murders” or “mass killings”, because in many cases the incident doesn’t fit those definitions, so they fall back on their usual tactics of using half-truths to deceive their consumers.
The fact of the matter is, this cannot be false or true, simply because of questions of common sense. Thinking about the mind of the potential killer, we can surmise that they are reasonably intelligent, so in their choice of location, you think they’re going to go into an area where they’re going to meet resistance? Or are they going to pick the building where guns are “not allowed”? How about conducting a shooting in a state whose laws deem that firearm illegal? This happened in California recently. How can anyone make a conclusion based on assumptions?
This “assumes” that the law abiding will carry in a “gun-free” zone (typically, they won’t), and that there are more people carrying than actually are. Then you have to factor in experience. Some random civilian that bought their gun and took no classes will not know how to use it under duress, or has the clear thought to engage the threat. But you take a former servicemember who happens to be carrying, they know what it sounds like when they’re firing at or away from them, reloading, malfunctions, how to engage and target the threat, and the list goes on.
Gun free zones make soft targets, soft targets are easy targets. This is why you never hear about shootings in gun stores, or other places that encourage people to use their Second Amendment rights.
Laws don’t stop crime, they only hinder the law-abiding. If you still don’t believe me, I’ll point to the “war on drugs”, certainly, to some extent, it works, but now we have major cities that have areas for safe heroin use, for example.
I completely agree with all comments above regarding the omission of the concept of gun-free zones. Cherry-picked stats to support this “Media Free Bias Fact Check” is plain ridiculous – and unconscionable.
Also – in reading this report referenced in above comment by “Media Bias Fact Check // March 9, 2019 at 6:04 pm //” – no concept of gun-free zones was even reported on. Furthermore, the models used for data/stats to do this comparison between states per its’ own references to articles and its own summary pics, “Models were adjusted for: Household Income, Unemployment, Female-headed households, Poverty, Incarceration rate, Percent White, and High School Graduation Rate”.
I was led to believe this site was to have a Media Free Bias – I was sorely mistaken to have believed this.
Hahaha who needs gun anyways? Especially not men because man is strong than women and men Are only 50% of population yet 90% crime so only female gun
I mean… “Gun free zones” is not something that you can factor in if you don’t have said statistic. Calling the conclusion bias would be foolish if not disingenuous. Honestly the number of people who don’t understand statistics in this comment section is unbearable. The conclusion was made on the basis of the evidence provided (evidence that lacks bias, I might add) and that’s the end of it. I’m sorry that some people don’t like the conclusion, but facts don’t care about your feelings, and it’s high time those people accept that.
Remember: Positive claims require positive evidence.
All the comments about ‘gun-free zones’ are quite valid and the need of a physic to prove if a incident COULD have become a mass event had it not been stopped is equally valid, but both are equally unprovable based on the facts you have used. Okay, valid point, however, I would be very curious if your 3% number would change if you separated the states where gun control laws are already in effect from the ones where conceal carry is allowed and compare them separately. These are numbers you SHOULD be able to check. likely from the same source. More effort, yes, but wouldn’t it actually be more accurate? The pro-gun argument is in a state of gun control, only the law abiding citizens will not have guns. If carrying a gun only makes minimal difference, then your 3% fact should be valid whether the state has gun control laws or not. Is it?
Also, I want to point that the statement being evaluated said “less”, not “significantly less”. I would also argue that if you are going to insist on going by the numbers presented that regardless of the number you start with, 3% less is, indeed, LESS, therefore the statement is ‘true’ or at the very least ‘mostly true’ unless you are saying that ‘less’ must be quantified as a particular amount in order for it to actually be considered less, but that would seem subjective on your part.
The claims remind me of the survivor bias when analyzing damage to bomber aircraft during sorties in WWII. Bullet and fragment damage was compiled and recommendations made about up-armoring the portions of the plane that showed the most damage.
Then it was pointed out that these were all the planes that returned to a friendly airbase, and the real problem was the planes that were shot everywhere else were the ones to not make it back. The result was the exact opposite of what was first assumed.
The vast majority of successful mass shootings have been in states, cities, locations where the likelihood of a legally armed citizen being present are low. It is still possible it is coincidental, but wow, what a coincidence if so.
The fact that you can’t determine whether or not armed citizens have been present at every mass shooting makes your claim erroneous; it’s beat to take this “analysis” down because you have already lost credibility.
This ‘fact check’ is hopelessly flawed. You’re using the small percentage of total shootings where an armed citizen stopped the threat to argue that armed citizens do not end mass shootings when they are present. However, you have absolutely no data on how many shootings of which there was an armed citizen present, or even if they occurred where such a citizen was more or less likely to be present.
Bystanders are much more likely to be armed in states like Georgia, Utah, or Florida than California, New Jersey, or Rhode Island. Your fact check takes none of that into account, not even if the whether the individual locations were carry-prohibited, instead assuming that armed citizens are present everywhere, and that they just don’t have any effect.
Furthermore, you also have the issue that many shootings which an armed bystander stopped may not even be classified as “active shooter events” because not enough people were hurt.
Not a bad analysis. Thorough enough considering the stats are incomplete. Some commenters are mentioning such nonsense as gun-free zones but that is irrelevant as mass attacks can occur in any state, gun-free or gun-full. It comes down to the numbers and their frequency; complete data is best, however these partial findings help lead to the start of a conclusion. More data will help modify and complete these results.
Claim: More people eating pie will make people happier
Fact Check: False
Explanation: We only found 3% of the population to be eating pie, the 3% were happy but the number of people eating pie is so low it must be false.
How the hell does this make the claim false if you ate only measuring the current state? The claim is more pie than the current pie level will make people happier…
I find this report to be at best missing significant data, as no accounting was made for shootings within gun free zones, or how many people who owned guns were carrying them or were allowed to carry them, according to state, federal and local laws.
What a ridiculously provincial group of comments. There are other countries, some, like Somalia, have a high gun ownership and few gun laws, some, like Canada, have gun laws but also high gun ownership, while others, like the UK, have essentially zero legal gun ownership and even the police do not routinely carry guns.
Why not check the gun statistics in those countries? Particularly ones that are culturally close to the USA, like Canada?
Pretty sure we will see the mass shooting problem is a US problem…
This so called “fact check” is clearly bias and disingenuous.
“How To Lie With Statistics” by Darrell Huff.
Anyone is capable of massaging the data to reach the desired result.
There are SO MANY variables in shooting incidents that the absolute truth cannot be known.
But we do know:
(1) Only a fraction of 1% of legal gun buyers commit a crime with a legally purchased firearm. Unfortunately, most are suicides. This should tell every reasonable person that legal gun owners are not the ones who need to be controlled and restricted because of the deeds of the criminals.
(2) The majority of firearm crimes are committed with STOLEN weapons.
(3) The majority of “mass” shootings are domestic crimes (crimes of passion) involving an entire family or household. The mass shooting narrative makes it seem as if the public is constantly in danger. If a gun had not been available, they likely would’ve still killed using a knife, baseball bat, cast iron skillet, broken glass, or their bare hands. In those irrational moments, any object would be dangerous.
(4) If 4 million guns were the problem, we would have more shootings. The fact is, legal gun owners are NOT the problem. Guns are not the problem. “Soft on crime” DAs; stolen guns; and, mostly, the criminals are the problem.
We don’t have a gun problem; we have a people problem.