Do civilians armed with guns ever stop mass shooters?
1. In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state.
2. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It’s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.
3. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Thought experiment:
How many children would have gotten shot if all the adults at the school had been armed?
Bonus question:
How many liberals would continue as teachers if they were required to be armed and able to prove their proficiency with their weapon?
Knott Buyinit on December 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM
I think we need a better class of leftist trolls. Lost just throws out these posts, but doesn’t try to debate his side at all. He tried to shame me on another board and called me a sick person, but missed where my whole post was quoting a PROGRESSIVE magazine.
These type of liberals are just liberals because they FEEL good about themselves, because someone told them that liberals are “love and tolerance.”
melle1228 on December 16, 2012 at 10:12 PM
I’d like for the anti-gun folks to state here and now that they would object to an armed civilian protecting them in a situation where their lives (or their kids lives) were in danger.
I mean, if you have such an issue with the horrible culture of gun violence, then you’d be okay if I just kept my weapon holstered and let you fend for yourself.
Right?
tdpwells on December 16, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Appears lost… is a classic troll.
CW on December 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM
The better question to ask is how many mass shootings would not have occurred if potential shootists knew anyone, not known to him, in the area might or probably is carrying a weapon?
Mitoch55 on December 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM
With the mental ill and the suicidals this fact might not make a difference, but I can tell you it wouldn’t have been a “mass” anything if there were people who were armed and trained with weapons.
melle1228 on December 16, 2012 at 10:33 PM
That the shooter took his own life once first responders arrived leads me to believe this one sure wouldn’t have happened.
Mitoch55 on December 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM
I’ve thought for many years that teachers should be armed, and actually that law should require a minimum of 50% of a school’s staff be trained and required to carry firearms, either open or concealed at all times. I’d even support gov’t paid training and equipping of qualified teachers. This deterrent would go a looooong way to ensuring safety in our schools.
We do face a conundrum with the mental health issue, particularly with regards to who determines a person’s mental health, what criteria are used to determine it, and what happens to those not deemed mentally fit to own a firearm. Considering the pathetic state of psychobabble “science”, and the political nature of where their funding comes from and what they do, there’s no way I’d ever trust a subjective evaluation from any of them. Might as well create the Secretary of Thought Purity, legalize eugenics and make it the law. No thanks.
There are plenty of eccentric people who are entirely sane and responsible, but their outward appearance or unpopular opinions make some think they are nutjobs. There are plenty of very well dressed and well-groomed people who ARE certifiably evil and insane and nobody sees them coming. Outside of the truly obvious, debilitated nuts who are already routinely committed to institutions, there’s really no OBJECTIVE test for sanity or mental fitness to own a firearm that we can rely on.
In the end, the answer is more responsible citizens, carrying more firearms, who are trained and mentally ready to stop crazy, violent people in their tracks. A well-regulated militia, indeed.
Harbingeing on December 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM
I know that civilians unarmed aren’t very likely to stop shooters.
The Rogue Tomato on December 16, 2012 at 11:28 PM
It’s very strange that these commenters are railing against the author of this article, since Eugene Volokh is strongly pro-gun rights, both from a constitutional point of view (he’s a law professor) and from a policy point of view. He’s just laying out the facts in an honest way, but I guess there’s a knee-jerk reaction around here to assume that someone is the enemy if they don’t tell your side of the story in the most extreme terms.
tneloms on December 17, 2012 at 12:51 AM
There’s your answer, Eugene.
profitsbeard on December 17, 2012 at 1:07 AM
Boy, that’s for sure. There are a lot of crazy people in the psych field. Also, the use of psychology is easily abused.
Blake on December 17, 2012 at 5:19 AM
When in comes to mass killings the killers intentionally seek out targets that will be unarmed. Therefore, the premise of this argument is flawed.
Even idiot terrorists seek civilians in an attempt at striking maximum fear and not getting caught before they go boom.
With Fort Hood the idiot terrorist, a psychiatrist no less, knew that the area he was going would typically be filled with unarmed soldiers. As I recall the idiot terrorist/psychiatrist did get shot by an armed soldier, which prevented more killings from happening.
So, it isn’t wether armed civilians might prevent mass killings,but, that they have cut the kill count.
And we would know the glaring fact, no thanks to the inept reporting by the MSM, that even a loon isn’t crazy enough to take those odds.
kregg on December 17, 2012 at 7:01 AM
The best question is “How ’bout we give it a try?”
Odysseus on December 17, 2012 at 7:05 AM
The best question is “How fast would or could you respond to a surreal surprise?”
Even with my concealed weapon I have to take cover, retrieve my weapon, assess the situation, and look for a clean shot. After I fire what then? Not all shots land on target. As I recall there was a report that revealed that handguns are more effective at a range of 12 feet or less and that in gun fights only 2% of the rounds fired stopped or killed the target.
Again, areas where open carry is commonly in practice have the lowest violent crime statistics.
Mass slaughters rely on unarmed sitting ducks. These are very difficult to defend against, unless one is in the right place at the right time.
kregg on December 17, 2012 at 7:46 AM
I don’t know what report you’re talking about there. I’d say those numbers might be accurate regarding the crazed shooters themselves — or even somewhat on the high side. But the odds of two lunatics just happening to kill each other when their sprees intersect are so low as to not really be worthy of serious consideration.
No matter how unexpected a situation like this might be, the average sane man is still going to have his head together a LOT better than that pathetic loony-tune did.
logis on December 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM
CORRECTION: That’s 20% (not 2%)
The FBI Handgun Wounding Factors & Effectiveness Report can be found at the link below.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
kregg on December 17, 2012 at 6:05 PM
Just realized that most civilians won’t be allowed access to the report.
However, there should be a Kindle version available on Amazon.
kregg on December 17, 2012 at 6:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2