If you look only at successful mass killings, you are looking at situations where it took time for a person with a gun to arrive and stop it. That is, you are only looking at situations where there was not a civilian with a gun on the spot.
The devil is in the details. And there is a lot of evil in the details of such a twisted study.
Of course, Ed Shultz was misusing the results, but that was the whole point of the study, to give folks like Crazy Eddy something to use to further gun control.
Reminds me of Hazlitt’s advice about “what you don’t see” in economics.
From the article...
“We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.” (According to the criteria used in their research, a mass shooting is when the “shooter took the lives of at least four people.”)”
Well, duh, when a civilian stops a perp, there is no mass shooting to report!
Oh, and Ed, stick it in your ear and squeeze :)
Rigging the criteria to prove their point.
Just sayin'...
No, we never had a liberal tell the truth unless is served his interest.
The criteria was more than four people killed. These idiots truly don’t get that four or more weren’t killed BECAUSE the shooters were stopped by civilians.
Schultz demonstrates that at some point, stupidity is criminal.
Note that to the Left, “use” in this case means “shoot”. In most instances where an armed citizen uses a gun to stop a would be mass killing, all he had to do was display his gun to the attacker. The Left is incapable of acknowledging the mere presence of a lawfully owned gun as a valid deterrent.
And of course, if there are not a lot of people killed then it does not count as a mass killing. As an example which the Hollywood Left might understand, note the end of the movie “Source Code”: the project was considered an abject failure because it was, in fact, a complete success in preventing mass death.
Using guns to stop “gun violence” is simply ruled out by the Left’s axioms. It is a fundamental rule, not open to debate.