Jared Louchner at the Tucson shooting was stopped by an Arizona CCW holder.
Mother Jones News = Barking Moonbat Central
“We identified and analyzed 62 of them...”
Out of how many?
“In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
You mean, in those 62? Out of how many?
“For the purposes of their study, they identified mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people were killed.”
In other words, there were a ton MORE at 3 that they did NOT want to have to average in.
The Mother Jones conclusion, that none of the mass shootings were stopped by an armed civilian, is one of those “no s... Sherlock” kinds of statements that would be unintentionally hilarious except for the gruesome fact that people were slaughtered because they didn’t have a weapon to counter the killer(s). It’s something the idiots at MJ would not understand.
Mother Jones is apparently saying anyone who has been trained to use deadly force is not a “civilian”, thus, once a police officer, never a citizen again.
They show their mindset... civilians can not be trained to arms by definition.
Anything to support their agenda.
Conservatives see all citizens as potential citizen-soldiers, Mother Jones sees them as disarmed victims.
List of mass shootings and potential mass shootings stoped by armed citizens:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html
Probably a good idea to post this reporter’s house on an interactive Google map.
“In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
FALLACY:
One cannot prove an ex post facto negative hypothesis.
Being a MASS shooting, by definition it wasn’t stopped before or during its happening. The conclusion is that lack of an easily accessible gun to stop the perpetrator RESULTED in the MASS shooting. Ultimately, the presence of a “friendly” gun DID prevent additional killings — even of the gunman.
The are issues to take with Mother Jones, but the article doesn’t take them correctly. First, the definition of “mass shooting” that MJ uses is four or more fatalities. Which is the same definition as the FBI uses. There were only two fatalities at PEarl, and two at the Clackamas mall, and two at the New Life Church. So none of them even “makes the grade” of being a mass shooting. Of course, one can’t know how many fatalities were intended by these perpetrators, so one really can’t say whether a mass-shooting-to-be was stopped or not. The biggest objection to the article is that with only one exception, armed citizens were banned from the locale of the mass shootings. What sort of evil does one have to have, to criticize the utility of armed citizens, by saying that they never stopped mass shootings, when said armed citizens were not allowed to be there? (Answer: Mother Jones and other gun grabbers.) Finally, the article is wrong. The mass shooting in Tucson AZ (in which Rep. Giffords was wounded) *was* stopped by an armed citizen, although it wasn’t stopped by the citizen killing the shooter. That was the only exception to the rule that mass killers prefer (pretend) “gun-free” zones. Needless to say, mass killers choose the locations of their massacres, and they overwhelmingly prefer “gun-free” zones.
It actually proves the opposite. Typical liberals.
Interesting that the propagandist from Mother Jones analyzed 62 “mass shootings” but doesn’t bother to mention how many of those occurred in “gun free” zones.
Man, we were like? stoned? when we we wrote that $H!t, man! Can’t you tell by readin’ it?
There was actually more basic flaws in the Mother Jones report, that this article misses sadly.
First, they studied 62 mass killings. Mass killings are defined as 4 or more killings. They then dismissed claims of civilians stopping shootings, sometimes by noting that they weren’t “mass killings”.
In other words, if a civilian stopped a gunman before he killed 4 people, then the incident wasn’t a mass killing, so the civilian didn’t “stop” a “mass killing”.
And of course, if the killer actually DID kill more than 4 people, then they would claim the killer was probably done before the civilian stopped them.
And another big flaw — most mass killings happen in gun-free zones. That means two things; first that civilians are prohibited from having guns, so it is much less likely that a civilian can stop a mass killer. And second, that if the civilian can help it, they will remain anonymous, so they don’t get arrested for using a weapon in a gun-free zone.
So, for example, recently a civilian stopped the portland mall shooter, by showing a weapon, thus scaring the shooter into running into a store and killing himself. But that didn’t count for Mother Jones, for two reasons — first, because 4 people weren’t killed, and second, because there is no PROOF that the guy was the reason it ended (because the guy didn’t come forward since he would get arrested).
The last flaw is that the best use of a weapon is as a deterrent (much like our nuclear arsenal — did it end dozens of wars, by keeping them from starting, or are they a complete waste because since WW2, not a single nuclear weapon has ever been used to END a war?) There aren’t hardly any mass killings where you find guns, because guns deter them. There is no way to know how many mass killings have been prevented because the would-be killer was afraid to carry out his ideas, for fear of getting shot.