The writer is misquoting the article and skewing the conclusion. The FBI reported #’s of incidents and responders.
There are more unarmed civilians than carriers in the general population. The incidents were predominately at gun free zones where people could not legally carry. Both these facts would lead to > numbers of incidents where the bystanders who intervened were unarmed.
Therefore looking at the # of interventions by bystanders in this study allows no conclusions to be drawn about which class of bystander(unarmed or armed citizen) is more likely to successfully control the situation without injury/loss of life to him/herself, or other bystanders. Our common sense, a quality of which the writer seems totally bereft, is left to make those conclusions.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf
That was exactly my thought.
The applied biologist is either no statistician or a complete fraud engaging in deceptive distortion.
The absurdity of claiming that unarmed people are more effective at stopping someone who’s armed is obvious.