The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Private Gun Carriers' Self-Defense Against Public Shooters
The El Paso incident from a few days ago, the FBI 2021 statistics, and more.
I had written about this in past years, but I thought I'd update it to reflect the El Paso incident from last week. According to the El Paso Police Department (see also CNN [Andy Rose]), a confrontation between two groups of teenagers at a mall "escalated into a physical fight" and then into a 16-year-old fatally shooting a member of the other group and seriously wounding another member, as well as injuring a member of his own group. Then,
As soon as the shooting ended, the 16-year-old suspect began to run and was pointing the gun towards the direction of bystanders, including 32-year-old Emanuel Duran, a Licensed to Carry Holder. As the suspect ran towards Duran and bystanders, Duran drew his handgun and shot the suspect.
At that time, one off-duty El Paso Police Officer arrived at the area of the shooting and together with Duran rendered aid to the 16-year old suspect and the others that were injured. Investigators found that there were at least two other legally armed citizens in the area of where the shooting took place, but were not involved.
Now in this case, the suspect didn't seem to have planned a mass shooting; he seems to have had a beef with the other teenagers. On the other hand, he appears to have been pointing his gun towards the bystanders, so it's hard to know what would have happened. And something similar could easily have happened with an intended mass shooting as well; for an incident like that from last year, see this WCHS-TV story:
Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.
Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday …. No injuries were reported from those at the party.
Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.
"Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night," Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.
According to WCHS-TV (Bob Aaron), Butler was a convicted felon, and was thus not legally allowed to own guns. In principle, perhaps he might still have been stopped by (say) a law requiring background checks, which would likely have stopped law-abiding sellers from selling him the gun; but it's not clear whether someone with his criminal record would have much been stymied by that, as opposed to just buying a gun on the black market. Likewise, in El Paso, CNN reports that the gun used by the 16-year-old shooter was reported stolen.
I gathered some more examples from over the years here, and then followed up with data based on FBI reports of mass shootings in 2016 and 2017: legal civilian gun carriers tried to intervene in 6 out of 50 incidents, and apparently succeeded in 3 or 4 of them.
The FBI also has 2021 data (I don't expect the 2022 data until later this year). That reports 61 "active shooter" incidents, of which 12 were treated as "mass killing" incidents, and 4 of those active shooter incidents led to "shooters [being] killed by citizen," all apparently involve gun-wielding citizens (PDF p. 4, 11-12). Two more incidents involved citizens detaining a shooter without using guns themselves. Some of the incidents I discussed in my earlier posts involved gun-wielding citizens stopping a shooter without killing him, but none seem to have occurred that way in 2021.
A few thoughts, which I'd mentioned before, but which I thought I'd repeat:
[1.] Unsurprisingly, sometimes the good guy (or, in the West Virginia incident, gal) with a gun succeeds and sometimes not. Sometimes the success might be a lucky break; sometimes a lucky break for the defender might have ended the incident more quickly. And it's impossible to tell for sure how many lives, if any, were saved in the aggregate, because that's generally a counterfactual. Still, the aggregate pattern seems to be that armed civilian self-defense takes place in a significant fraction of active shooter incidents.
[2.] None of this proves that broad concealed carry rights on balance do more good than harm (or vice versa). But it is a response to claims that I've heard that the good guy with a gun never helps; these incidents further show that there are potential pluses to broad concealed carry rights, and of course there are potential minuses as well.
[3.] Some shootings are in places where concealed carry is not allowed, such as on school premises or in jurisdictions where concealed carry licenses are often hard to get. It's hard to tell for sure how many of the shootings fit into this category, because laws vary from state to state, and rules vary from business to business (plus in some states carrying in a business that prohibits guns is itself a crime). But it's possible that there would have been more defensive uses of guns in some cases if people were legally allowed to have their guns there.
[4.] Finally, always keep in mind that public shooting situations should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: Active-shooter mass shootings on average account for less than 1% of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Likewise, shootings at malls when they're open, whether they involve an active shooter or a fight that leads to a shooting and then the shooter running with possibly ambiguous intentions, are quite rare. But people talk about such public shootings a lot, so I thought I'd offer a perspective on them for those who are interested.
Thanks to Prof. Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit) for the pointer to the El Paso story.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is a reason that mass shooters go to places such as schools to commit mass shootings. There is less likely there will be someone to shoot back. Even if there is an armed guard, he or she is normally wearing a uniform and easily identifiable and able to become a target. If there is a chance there may be several unknown people in the location who are carrying a concealed weapon, there is a greater chance the shooter will choose another target.
I see the familiar print of a holstered firearm on several people each time I go shopping or just about anywhere in my rural area. It’s a comforting feeling to know there are so many armed citizens nearby just in case some nut case is pissed off at his girlfriend, co-worker, or just life in general.
That explains Fort Hood, the Navy Yard shooting, Texas church shooting, etc.,
The Texas church shooting was stopped by the neighborhood across the street and his rifle. Got the shooter on the way to kill his in-laws because they weren’t at church.
Way to diminish your own point.
“mass shooters go to places such as schools to commit mass shootings.”
Whoops, as I said, they don’t do that.
This is counter-intuitive, but since the carrying of guns is tightly regulated on military bases, they are more akin to gun-free zones. It’s not surprising, then, that the Fort Hood shooter was able to kill a lot of people.
And, until recently, in Texas, churches were also gun-free zones. Or, at least, the law strongly indicated they were. See https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/20/texas-handgun-allowed-churches-sutherland-springs/
Given the Texas church shooter was killed by a security guard there, not so much, eh?
CindyF: “Mass shooters target gun-free zones”
Queenie: “Oh yeah, then what about these 3 shootings that happened in gun-free zones?”
Everyone with a brain: “???”
The Fort Hood shooting occurred in a location that, counterintuitively, had the tightest gun controls you will find anywhere. The only exception? Facility leadership like the guy who went on the rampage.
It does actually, at most military bases there are probably fewer peoples carrying loaded weapons than in the neighboring town, especially the Navy Yard, you ever been to that part of DC??
Fort Hood was a gun-free zone — believe it or not, and I had trouble with this, but military personnel are required to keep their personal weapons in the base armory. Likewise the Navy Yard.
Both were GUN FREE ZONES.
They go to schools because that is where they will get the most bang for their buck. They want their impact to be as violently outrageous as possible and that is why they go to schools.
Also, they sometimes have a grievance related to that school or schools in general.
I repost this periodically, and it seems particularly relevant here.
There is a reason so many mass shootings happen at schools — they are gun-free zones. Take that away, allow armed teachers, and mass school shootings will vanish within weeks or months as news reports show how suicidal and ineffective they have become.
Read or skim this article. It is not mine; I only post this link and a short summary. Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously. One begins to suspect there’s a reason Mother Jones and the police ignore shootings with fewer than 4 victims.
The way to stop school shootings is simple:
* Get rid of gun-free zones.
* Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn’t matter.
Making carry mandatory isn’t necessary, as shown by the statistics above, and it offends my sense of liberty, reduces the employment pool, and many people are not very good with guns.
Another bit of related research: https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/major-new-research-on-school-safety-schools-that-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns-havent-seen-school-shootings-during-school-hours/
There is a reason so many mass shootings happen at schools — they are gun-free zones.
Even in the absence of laws against carrying guns on school grounds, how many people with guns would you expect to find? I am a teacher. There is no way in hell I would carry my gun at school. (And yes, I own guns, including a 9mm handgun.) None of my colleagues (in Florida) have ever expressed a desire to carry a gun, either. More than 90% of the people on the campus are children, so that is out as well.
A high school campus is also not a “gun-free zone” as they will have 1-2 armed police officers present as well. And unlike teachers, guidance counselors, secretaries, and administrators, they actually have training on how to respond to a shooter when there will be dozens of children in the line of fire between them and the shooter.
Didn’t the armed police officer at Parktown wait outside while teachers shielded students with their own bodies?
As I said …
Who are you to speak for all other teachers and staff?
How many of those schools which had mass shootings had police on campus?
The definition of gun free zones means the general public not law enforcement.
Court houses are gun free zones, but crawling with armed law enforcement.
Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously.
Right. That articles analysis is counting shooters stopped by someone else. Why not include the incidents when no one stopped the shooter or the shooter killed themselves?
https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/major-new-research-on-school-safety-schools-that-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns-havent-seen-school-shootings-during-school-hours/
Really? How many schools allow teachers to carry guns? And when they do, how many teachers actually do end up carrying a gun? I am not convinced it would even be worth my time to click on the link for that.
You should try reading the article. It includes shooters who killed themselves after police showed up in the “stopped by police” tally.
“Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn’t matter.”
I think concealed is a lot better, because open carriers can just be avoided or neutralized.
-dk
They go to schools because they have a grievance. They don’t think about carrying.
That says nothing about whether people should be allowed to carry, but let’s stop the fiction that these crazy people care.
I don’t think your assumptions as to the plans of mass shooters is well established.
I’m not even sure if gun free zones have more or less baseline mass shootings, uh less that it’s causal.
It’s a lovely story, and it could be true. But so far just a story.
“… and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law,”. Or any law. Would be great if fear or respect for law stopped crime but it doesn’t and never has.
So let’s stop all the effort on illegal immigration!
Don’t pay attention much? Senescent Joe has (Stopped all effort on Illegal Immigration)
As usual, Lil’ Frankie is an idiot.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ice-immigration-arrests-and-deportations-us-interior-increased-fiscal-year-2022/
It still amazes me that whether or not a constitutional right “works” is part of the discussion.
Shall no be infringed means shall not be infringed.
Open carry concealed carry, over the shoulder carry, whatever; shall not be infringed.
Eight year olds carrying, shall not be infringed!
Not very long ago, that was a valid parental decision. And plenty of eight year olds not only did carry but did so responsibly and helped put food on the table.
I carried when I was eight
I see that walking down my road ever year on the 1st day of Buck Season.
My dad certainly had me carrying and shooting *with him* at that age. Do you want to argue though that 8?year olds have the right to generally carry?
Wikipedia:
Annie Oakley “began trapping before the age of seven, and shooting and hunting by age eight, to support her siblings and her widowed mother.”
Remember that the self-defense laws that apply here are the same for police as for ordinary citizens. So this discussion should not be held separately for police and for ordinary citizens. The same laws and the same considerations apply equally to both.
So, I’m not disagreeing with what EV said. But I do object to not mentioning police in the blog post.
That wouldn’t feed the red meat.
re: “the self-defense laws that apply here are the same for police as for ordinary citizens”
In general, no they’re not. In fact, I can’t think of even a single jurisdiction where they’re the same. Police have a different ethical obligation and police have very different legal protections when they use lethal force.
There was a case in 2021 in Colorado where a CCW permitee shot and killed an attacker and was then killed by responding police officers. John Hurley killed Ronald Troyke after he’d killed an Arvada cop. He then inexplicably picked up Troyke’s rifle and was holding both the rifle and his own handgun when backup officers arrived.
Hey Bob M is that the exception or the rule.
These stories make it apparent that a person with a concealed-carry permit is more likely to be the “good guy with a gun” than not. Possible reason: although requirements vary from one jurisdiction to another the permit holder has at least some recognized obligation to the law and oversight by it, not to mention required training.
If this then it shows that gun control laws that would require registration, background checks, and training would actually work.
As we have it now, unrestrained access and fetishization of 2A “rights” does not work.
Please explain how it does not work. Criminals carry regardless of laws.
Kyle Rittenhouse would be in jail because when the cops saw him with a gun he had no business having they would have arrested him instead of tossing him a water bottle and a cheery wave.
And two people wouldn’t have been murdered that night.
You have no business acting like you get to decide whether he should have been carrying a gun or not.
And a jury decided nobody was murdered that night.
You can do “criminals don’t obey laws” for most laws. C’mon.
“If this then it shows that gun control laws that would require registration, background checks, and training would actually work.”
*If* it’s these laws which induce people to receive training in the proper use of firearms.
“I was gonna spend the evening drinking beer and shooting the empties off of fence posts, but instead I think I’ll take firearms-training classes because the law wants me to be a responsible citizen.”
Depending on what’s downrange of those fenceposts, and how MUCH beer you drink, I don’t have a problem with the former — my concern is someone who is carrying a weapon that the person has never fired and somehow expects to have 100% accuracy with.
Texas where this incident happened is a constitutional carry state: No permit or training needed to carry a concealed weapon.
I got my concealed weapons permit in Washington where they do a background check, but no training is needed, that was the law since 1962, although I think it’s been changed.
Prof. Volokh finally finds a gun-related story — after avoiding several prominent ones — to which he wishes to direct attention.