Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

July 31st, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.

I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.

The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than three people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.

Step One: Amassing a data set

I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.

  1. Info Please
  2. CNN
  3. Denver Post
  4. News Max
  5. TruTV

While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.

As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.

I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.

Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.

While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.

I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.

What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.

Step Three: The List

I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.

  • 9/6/1949 – Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
  • 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shot and killed him.
  • 10/16/1991 – George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He committed suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
  • 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed six people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
  • 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed two people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
  • 2/2/1996 – Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed three people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
  • 10/1/1997 – Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed three students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
  • 12/1/1997 – Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing three girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
  • 4/24/1998 – Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed one student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
  • 5/21/1998 – Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing two students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
  • 4/20/1999 – Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. Fifteen people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 – Mark Barton was a day trader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
  • 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. Three people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by three students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
  • 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed six people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
  • 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed two people before PE teacher Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
  • 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed seven people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
  • 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
  • 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed one person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
  • 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually committed suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed two people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing two more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and committed suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed six people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
  • 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed eight people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
  • 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. Thirteen people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
  • 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
  • 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed three people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed her out of the room and blockaded the door. Bishop was arrested later.
  • 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
  • 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. Three students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. Parker killed one person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
  • 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Twelve people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
  • 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing six people. He committed suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 – Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a rifle, going room-to-room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and committed suicide after police arrived.

Step Four: Final analysis

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far fewer people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?

* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.


Tags: , , , , , ,

12,776 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

  1. ColinNo Gravatar says:

    The fundamental problems with any gun related survey are twofold. First what is the motivation of the surveyors, it affects the results in the survey, from the start, the questions, the audience chosen and the end tabulation of the data.
    2nd issue is that you can not get reliable gun data using traditional survey methods, which are already suffering from the dropping landline numbers for all types of surveys. Now imagine you are at home, phone rings and a strangers asks you “do you have guns in the house, how many, have you ever used them in self-defense?” I don’t know any gun owner who would answer any of those questions. The only way to get accurate data is to go roundabout, using sales and marketing data from the firearm industry and couple that against government crime data. The US actually has excellent data sets and a wide mix of jurisdiction with varying populations and legislation. It is without a doubt the best place to study the questions. If you want to get good data on gun usage, you would have to do it through trusted organizations like the NRA, hunting associations, NSSF, CSSA, NFA, Ducks unlimited, etc and you would have to do it at places where gun owners can do it face to face. Now you have already biased the surveys by specific audience, but the data would likely be quite accurate. Gun owners will not give information to government agencies or groups they consider hostile and with intent to use the information to harm them. All is said and done there are 300+/- million guns in the US, 15-30million in Canada and rould 10-12 billion rounds of ammunition sold a year. Yet homicide rate have been trending downwards. gun control is a bandaid for politicans that don’t want to delve into the tougher social issue that create gangs or with the limited number of cites that have sky high murder rates.

  2. AdiNo Gravatar says:

    I find this utterly fascinating! Have you done an update?

  3. Reginald BarclayNo Gravatar says:

    Bwah ha ha ha! ent-on-mass-shooters-by-explaining-why-he-didnt-attack-oregon-kil ler/

    “A veteran who says he was carrying a concealed weapon on Oregon’s Umpqua Community College campus Thursday when 26-year-old Christopher Harper Mercer went on a murderous rampage, says he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.”

    • BobNo Gravatar says:

      You left off some key quotes:
      “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening.”
      “Parker noted that he was hustled into a classroom with other students by a professor who asked if anyone was armed. He said he raised his hand and said he would attempt to protect his fellow students if they came under attack.”

      So, he was too far away to do anything but had he been in the classroom under attack, he would’ve done something to stop it.

      Your argument: destroyed.

      • Reginald BarclayNo Gravatar says:

        Yea, hiding from a mass killer in a classroom sounds just like freedom.

        • BobNo Gravatar says:

          … a classroom far away from the incident that was put on lockdown. Perhaps you would’ve responded differently? Common sense tells you that when you find out the police and SWAT are on campus,engaged with finding the shooter, that you don’t run out brandishing a weapon.

          But again, had that shooter entered the classroom with a veteran who had a gun, things would’ve turned out quite differently. You know that but your dogma won’t let you admit it.

        • rayrayNo Gravatar says:

          Reginald, you are free to put on the leather mask and play sub all you want. Leave me the fuck out of it, or have the bollocks to do the dirty work yourself instead of hiding behind your masters.

    • DougNo Gravatar says:

      The link for that article includes the term “gun nut”. At that point it becomes a one sided article from an anti gun reporter (not journalist) and also emotionally based and loses all credibility for factual reference.

      You lose!

    • Michael PriceNo Gravatar says:

      So your argument is that in this particular case this particular armed person didn’t help. Wow, way to admit you have no arguments.

      • JoseNo Gravatar says:


        “he didn’t intervene because he knew police SWAT team members wouldn’t know him from the shooter.”

  4. DougNo Gravatar says:

    Reginald, that proves or disproves very little. Unlike police officers, a CCL holder is under zero obligation to defend anyone else. If this CCL holder survived the ordeal without using his gun… that only proves that he personally survived without using his gun. No more, no less. Good for him. Too bad for everyone else, but nonetheless good for him.

    If as a CCL holder you do shoot someone for any reason whatsoever, you can expect to appear before a Grand Jury. If you’re white and shoot someone who is black (as would’ve been the case here) then you might also expect to be vilified in the media exactly as was done to George Zimmerman. So there is considerable incentive to NOT use your weapon to protect anyone’s ass but your own.

    If anything, this suggests we need to change the laws to more effectively legally protect those civilians who would choose to protect others with their carry weapon. “Stand your ground” or “self defense” might have been very difficult to prove in court in this case. A civilian CCL holder can’t go hunting down someone even if there’s a shooting spree going on. It might be the moral thing to do, I would agree, but legally if you do that you’re very, very exposed.

    • Michael PriceNo Gravatar says:

      “Reginald, that proves or disproves very little. Like police officers, a CCL holder is under zero obligation to defend anyone else.”

      • CaraNo Gravatar says:

        Actually, check your Supreme Court rulings on police officers and obligations. They are under no legal obligation to protect anyone.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          Actually, check your Supreme Court rulings on police officers and obligations. They are under no legal obligation to protect anyone.

          Exactly.A few years back,when my humble burg was experiencing unexplained explosions,every last one of our overpaid union thug cops abandoned their sworn duties.We did’nt miss them

  5. DougNo Gravatar says:

    “Parker noted that he was hustled into a classroom with other students by a professor who asked if anyone was armed. He said he raised his hand and said he would attempt to protect his fellow students if they came under attack.”

    What more than this can be expected? Other students were under attack, but not his particular group.

    • Doug BNo Gravatar says:

      Not to mention, what part of “Lock Down” do you not understand? Lock down means nobody in and nobody out until it’s all clear. He was being a responsible gun carrier and following instructions. He chose not to be Rambo like so many anti’s like to paint a picture of all gun owners.

  6. David HanoverNo Gravatar says:

    First of all, thank you for an excellent analysis.
    As regards the Parker situation, you stated; “A civilian CCL holder can’t go hunting down someone even if there’s a shooting spree going on. ”

    I beg to differ.
    Most states recognize a right (not a duty, certainly) to use lethal force in defense of another. It’s certainly true that one would likely be investigated, questione, perhaps even arrested, but the liklihood of a jury convicting someone of any unlawful homicide charge for intervening in a mass shooting seems remote.
    Perhaps that could be the subject of another excellent analysis.

  7. Reginald BarclayNo Gravatar says:

    No “good guy with a gun”, and not a gun free zone.

  8. Reginald BarclayNo Gravatar says:

    How many good guys with guns does it take to fend off one guy with a gun who fires off six rounds wounding four people. _Reagan

    • GalaneNo Gravatar says:

      What I remember from that is an interview on TV with a senior citizen in a hospital bed. He was standing behind John Hinckley, Jr. and when he saw Hinckley raise his gun, the old guy put his hands together in a double fist then hit Hinckley on the back of his neck.

      The stress of it all caused him to collapse, which was why he was taken to the hospital.

      Who was that old guy? His quick action is very likely what saved Reagan.

    • Michael PriceNo Gravatar says:

      Ok, you got us. The fact that government agents weren’t able to protect someone is totally a good argument for disarming the people. Argument by anecdote, you can’t beat it.

  9. BomarcNo Gravatar says:

    A friend posted another anti-gun article (comparing gun deaths to auto-deaths). Upon review, I found some details that might be of interest.
    First – use of the statement of “gun deaths” is misleading. The number includes suicides, however when they compare rates “Gun Deaths” vs “Gun Homicides” (usually with other countries)

    And this detail — see: icides.html?_r=0
    “More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide.”

    Take the raw numbers from 2013 (the last year they available)

    All firearm deaths
    • Number of deaths: 33,636
    Adjust the number … by 60% is approximately: 13,455

    Next …
    The basis of the article … the first “fact” is in error: “More people will die by guns than in car accidents this year….”
    (Again: The last time there was reliable numbers is from 2013)

    From the CDC:

    Motor vehicle traffic deaths
    • Number of deaths: 33,804
    All firearm deaths
    • Adjusted Number of murders: 13,455 (approximately)

    Suddenly this this problem isn’t as bad. (Also note: “More than 60%, and I rounded in favor of the gun control groups. The 13,455 is actually substantially lower)

    ALSO … after posting this response I realized: “Gun deaths”. What about justifiable gun deaths (Ex: killing a bugler) — I believe that these numbers are included with “Gun Deaths”

  10. superjohnNo Gravatar says:

    Your grammar is awful. You’re missing punctuation and most of your post is non-sensical. Why don’t you just focus on the contents of the article instead of criticizing it’s author? His work here has been more productive than your notes on spelling.

  11. Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

    trigger alert: This email contains information that could be considered racist.

    if you find the states 13 with the thirteen gun murder rates comparable with that of Western Europe. You will find that they include the 10 WHITEST states in this country. The three outliers are on this whitness
    density murdrs gun M ownershp Mrate Gun M Rate Blacks
    Iowa 3,046,355 54.81 38 21 42.9% 1.2 0.7 2.68%
    Minn 5,303,925 67.14 91 53 41.7% 1.7 1.0 4.57
    Hi 1,360,301 216.8 24 7 6.7% 1.8 0.5 3.08

    Iowa is the 10th whitest state, the average of the other 9 is about 1.5% black.

  12. Reginald BarclayNo Gravatar says:

    More guns, more violence.

    • BomarcNo Gravatar says:

      What is the associate between guns and violence? Use of guns are perhaps one of the more safe actives — given that misuse of a gun has such grave possibilities. There is however a well documented association between terrorists and violence.

    • JesterNo Gravatar says:

      Incorrect. More guns, more security… more security, less violence. Case in point: Several local area businesses have been robbed (armed robbery) nearby. Not my employer. We keep a loaded pistol on hand, and I keep my personal firearm on my hip. Criminals actively avoid attempting to rob this business as a result, even though police response time would be at least 15-20 minutes given the location. If it is not because there are guns at the location with competent marksmen to use them, then explain why there has been no attempt to rob us? Checkmate.

      • JesterNo Gravatar says:

        These robberies include at least one other business in the same chain, but whose owner did not allow firearms there.

      • Reginald BarclayNo Gravatar says:

        If that were true the United States of America would be the least violent country in the world. Your example merely displaces the violence to another part of the community. Different does not equal less.

      • Jester_NMNo Gravatar says:

        This whole discussion is ignoring one important fact. However they were stopped, 100% of the analysed incidents began with an armed civilian. More guns in more civilian hands means more incidents.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Jester, so are you implying that taking guns out of the hands of common men and thus avoiding more “incidents” is a good thing? Common men need more and especially better weaponry available so as to stay abreast of the weapons available to the common soldier. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is that the people can protect themselves from governmental intrusions either foreign or domestic. Obama is guilty of treason in intent if not de jure for his attempts to disarm us to promote his socialist/communist agenda.

          • Jester_NMNo Gravatar says:

            You should read more than just the first line of my comment.

          • Jester_NMNo Gravatar says:

            By the way, nobody is coming for your guns, Fritz. If you honestly believe that Obama is going to take your guns away, you are either a fool or mentally ill. Then again, perhaps it would be best for you to hand over your weapons before you hurt yourself or someone else.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              Pelosi clearly is…

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Jester, why do you give ad hominem attacks when I was attempting to have rational discourse with you?! Obama has been openly trying to disarm the common men throughout his presidency. His lack of success is not due to his lack of trying. Gun control is ultimately giving up individual liberty and accepting the collectivist society. I actually have no love for guns and do not own one. But I know that living in a society where the only folks with legal weapons are government thugs is destructive to all a freedom lover believes in. The collectivist assumes a priori that society should dictate. The individualist assumes a priori that all “rights” derive from individual “rights” and thus the collective has no more rights than the individual. Ultimately there is no compromise between these two groups of people which is why we free men need guns to fight for our liberty. The collectivist tries to fool us into giving up our means of defending our liberty willingly. I am not falling for it.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Reginald, even if you are accurate, and I do not believe you are, guns are necessary for the common man to be able to defend against the intrusions of government ultimately. Disarmed populaces find out the hard way how bad their governments become quickly. I will take my chances with having individual liberty along with weapons rather than the tyranny of government control with only thugs having weapons.

      • Reginald BarclayNo Gravatar says:

        You’re joking right? Americans are too in love with their creature comforts to ever have the stomach to go up against the world’s largest super power.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Reginald, I fear you may be correct in your assessment. However for free men to have the potential to protect themselves from their own government or anything else requires having the proper tools. In this case the proper tools are access to the same weaponry available to the common soldier at a minimum. I think it is far more than just love of creature comforts that would stop most US citizens from fighting back. I think there is a fantastic brainwashing going on for a couple of generations at least denigrating the traditional gender roles, in particular traditional masculinity, to the extent that most young men today are in constant confusion as to appropriate activities. Collectivism is ultimately dependent upon passive acceptance of governmental authority. Disarming the common man is a secondary aspect to prevent the few anacronisms from standing up and perhaps causing others to reconsider their operant conditioning. Once the conditioning is accepted universally, all the weapons in the world will do us no good for there will be no will to use them. If there is ever to be a free society children must be taken back from the government conformist factories that we call public schools.

        • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Most of the superpower is neutralized whole fighting itself. You can’t use an aircraft carrier, nukes, tomahawks, etc. to bomb entire neighborhoods when the troops have families in them without falling to exactly why terrorism keeps expanding: people pissed at government incompetence can do nothing but kill government’s representatives, since government itself is sort of a figment of the imagination.

  13. CNNo Gravatar says:

    I commend this writer’s effort and even some of his analysis in the study. That being said, the parameters of this study are arbitrary and the resources used should not have been used in the first place.

    The first problem with this study is how the data was trimmed. The writer came up with an arbitrary definition for the kind of shootings that were to be analyzed. The writer wanted to use incidents where the shooter had no pre-set number of intended victims. The problem here is that this kind of information can never ascertained. In the examples the writer listed that had been cut out, there’s no way to know for certain how many victims the shooter wanted. It’s the same problem for shooters who had committed suicide. The writer assumes that when the shooter commits suicide, that the shooter had shot all the people he planned to and then committed suicide; the assumption being that the shooter had planned thus, “I will shoot X number of people and then I will shoot myself.” The problem with this assumption is that there can be other reasons. Perhaps, as with shooting rampages, the shooter wanted to randomly kill people and then, perhaps, the shooter randomly chose that his next victim would be himself. Or that perhaps, the shooter wanted to kill as many people as he could be then when he was confronted with an authority figure (whether civilian or police), rather than being arrested or shot himself, he would rather take his own life instead.

    There are any number of reasons why a shooter ended up shooting an X number of people. It’s very difficult to pick out “shooting rampages” because that term is inherently ambiguous. The researcher can not go through the data and pick out events according to how the researcher feels data should be organized. What are the solid characteristics of shooting rampages? In a public, crowded area, at least more than 1 person killed, usually in business hours on business days.These more solid parameters should be in place such as “shootings where more than X person(s) were shot.” This can be combined with location as well. “Shootings that did not occur in a private home.” Shootings that occurred M-F between 8AM-5PM. That is how the data should be trimmed.

    Secondly, primary sources should always be used such as police bulletins, police press releases, and then secondary sources such as reputable media outlets such as large newspapers, CNN, etc. There are any number of resources that can be used, Los Angeles Times, Denver Post, Kansas City Star, Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe. Encyclopedias like Infoplease and wiki-sites should never be used in research. They shouldn’t be used because they are abstracts of primary and secondary sources, and, they are edited by random people.

    • superjohnNo Gravatar says:

      Cool Story, bro… Where’s your analysis?

      • CNNo Gravatar says:

        Don’t need one bro, I’m not the one that came up a study that’s clearly the result of confirmation bias

    • Rick DominickNo Gravatar says:

      I also think that including shootings stopped by unarmed civilians, or by armed civilians who did not use their guns, then putting “keep civilians armed” at the bottom of the meme is a false equivalency.

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        Citing incidents which were stopped by civilians lines up just fine with a push to keep legal the safest means by which a civilian can act thusly. We commend the guy who died to shield a woman in the latest rampage, but if he was so willing, why not allow that man the opportunity to carry a weapon, so as to take the gunman with him, at the very least?

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Great post 🙂

      I wrote something similar a couple years back. It never got a response either. You’d think the author would want to address the criticisms of the study, but I guess he’s comfortable with the many factual inaccuracies and quite gaping faults in methodology.

  14. Doug BNo Gravatar says:

    Thanks for the excellent article. I really appreciate relatively non biased data I can look to for facts and not pro or anti rants.

  15. K LNo Gravatar says:

    The moment you started being subjective on what events you would use, you lose all credibility. You purposely dropped a lot of events where a civilian clearly stopped the shooting just because they didn’t shoot the attacker. That’s cherry picking to fit your narrative.

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      All such analyses are subjective, that’s why the data for any given study is different from the next, or previous one. He told you what criteria he felt best fit the investigation at hand, and used them. You don’t agree. Fine. Pick your own, and re-perform the analysis with your own. Then publish YOUR results. A) we’ll be glad to review it, and B) we’ll be sure to remind you how many of your criteria are likewise subjective. 😉

      • CNNo Gravatar says:

        Even if one assumes the data is completely valid and was trimmed correctly, the conclusions that the researcher drew from his study are still invalid. The researcher in this case is conflating correlation with causation–which are two completely different things. Once cannot draw conclusions from a correlation because a correlation doesn’t really mean anything. It just means that “A” and “B” are somehow connected, we don’t know how or why. It’s a completely different thing to say that “A” causes “B”. In this case, the researcher is concluding that “less deaths” (B) in shooting rampages is caused by “armed civilians” (A). In reality, the correct statement should be: “less deaths” (B) in shooting rampages is somehow associated with “armed civilians” (A). I know it might sound like splitting hairs, but the difference is really crucial. Anybody familiar with research modeling or statistics will say that in order to prove causation, you have to run a regression analysis. A simple percentage of something doesn’t really mean anything.

        • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          They are not “completely different things”. One doesn’t even attempt to follow up on causation until one has correlation. It’s a bloody requirement of the process…
          And exactly how do you control for things like this? Give a random cross-section of the populace mental illnesses, peg their stress levels, and let them go on rampages to see how they would?
          Do you have a suggestion as to how to scientifically control such a thing?

  16. P MonkeNo Gravatar says:

    the shooters that kill themselves in a shootout with police still have to be considered taken by police. They would continue to kill if the police had not shown up. You cannot say that a shooter taken down by unarmed citizens counts towards Average Deaths in a Shooting Rampage When Stopped by Civilians and show a person holding a gun! You have to make it known that ONLY 2 were by gun and 1 was KILLED in doing so!!

  17. cb750No Gravatar says:

    So did you take into account that almost all mass shootings take place in GUN FREE ZONES and that the average citizen cannot have a gun in those places? Looking at JUST mass shootings isn’t honest. Civilians by far stop more gun crime in general. Home owner stopping a burglar for example.

    Take Aurora with Holmes. Holmes picked a theater that banned guns. So of course the vast majority of people in that theater are disarmed. This is the same with Lanza, Roof etc. Even Loughner picked a democrat rally where he knew democrats would not have guns.

    So I don’t see how a comparison is fair given civilians cannot have guns int he areas these shooting took place. Also do you take into account gang shootings?

  18. Robert OBrienNo Gravatar says:

    There are some great comments here, and a good study. A faulty conclusion can be drawn that where there is a civilian with a weapon the death total falls. There is no way to study this, but at how many mass shootings was there a person with a concealed weapon who chose to not get involved?

    Also…it’s self evident that a person who intervenes before the police arrive will reduce the death toll more so than when only the police stop the shooter.

  19. VicNo Gravatar says:

    Please make the effort to use correct terminology.

    It is detrimental to the Republic and Liberty to use the term “Civilian” when juxtaposed across from Civil Peace Officers..

    Citizens & Civil Police..

    Just like the deliberate misapplication of the term.. “Assault Weapon”

    Don’t assist the bad guys and their efforts to manipulate the terms and define the debate..

  20. Reginald BarclayNo Gravatar says:


    “Research by Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found that in the first six years after the state repealed the requirement for comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, the gun homicide rate was 16 percent higher than it was the six years before. During the same period, the national rate declined by 11 percent. After Professor Webster controlled for poverty and other factors that could influence the homicide rate, and took into account homicide rates in other states, the result was slightly higher, rising by 18 percent in Missouri.

    Federal death data released this month for 2014 showed a continuation of the trend, he said. Before the repeal, from 1999 to 2006, Missouri’s gun homicide rate was 13.8 percent higher than the national rate. From 2008 to 2014, it was 47 percent higher. (The new data also showed that the national death rate from guns was equal to that from motor vehicle crashes for the first time since the government began systematically tracking it.)” strictions-and-more-gun-killings.html?emc=edit_th_20151222&nl=tod aysheadlines&nlid=29673831&_r=0

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Reg, let us assume the accuracy of these statistics for the sake of argument. So what? The bottom line is that guns are necessary tools for individual defense, particularly from governments, foreign or domestic. Frankly the 2nd amendment, as imperfect as it has been made by improper Supreme Court decisions, is the major thing standing between US citizens and the draconian police state. Freedom is not free. One aspect of the price of freedom is the potential of folks misusing guns. But make no mistake, the price of not having access to weaponry is far more dangerous to individual liberty. Your position here is in accord with the socialist concept that individuals should not have weapons. That is ultimately to protect government thugs as they enforce ever more draconian dictates upon freedom lovers. Socialists have an a priori assumption that government represents the collective will and should be obeyed by all right thinking folks. Individualists assume a priori that all “rights” derive from the individual so the collective will is basically meaningless. There is no compromise between these a priori assumptions. In the real world people with guns fight it out. You are advocating that we individualists disarm ourselves thus rendering our view impotent. Fuck that. I would rather see civil war than the disarming of the common man.

  21. Robert O'BrienNo Gravatar says:

    Fritz…I’m curious…your 2nd Amendment interpretation is that all US citizens have a legal right to whatever weapons they want. It’s a total gray area in the Amendment but don’t you think that there should be some limitation on what I should be able to have? Should I be able to obtain a nuclear weapon? I don’t pretend to know what the line is, but it seems to me that there should be a limit for public safety purposes.

    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Seems to me that if one advocates not allowing an entity to have a weapon after they dempnstrate that they will misuse it, given the chance, then GOVERNMENTS should not have nuclear weapons.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        I agree, but that genie is out of the bottle. Pakistan is scary today for its military is on the verge of being controlled by the wacko Muslims. Who knows what irrationality can come with that!

    • GalaneNo Gravatar says:

      And there it is! In this type of discussion there’s *always* one on the anti side who brings up nuclear weapons. ALWAYS.

      It’s a corollary to “Godwin’s Law”.

      • Jester_NMNo Gravatar says:

        It’s the logical conclusion of the idea that there should be no limit on what weapons a person should be allowed to possess. We could dial it back a little and just say, “fully-automatic machine guns” or “Hellfire missiles.” When someone claims there should be no restrictions it is easy to reach the point of ridiculousness and demonstrate how little thought has gone into that expressed point of view.

        • Robert O'BrienNo Gravatar says:

          I agree, Jester. Who knows where the line is, or if there should be one at all. The discussion can easily reach ridiculousness. The 2nd Amendment simply says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not define what “arms” are. Further…if “arms” are simply hand guns or muskets (I don’t make that claim) then clearly the peoples right to bear arms is not infringed upon even if all other weapons are banned. It’s a difficult question, but it’s not as black and white as some of these comments make it out to be.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Robert, the 2nd Amendment is imperfect as written and very bad as interpreted by the old farts of the Supreme Court. What I advocate is that all men can be armed with the tools necessary to defend their freedom. Certainly giving government the right to decide for us what we need to defend ourselves is asinine in the extreme.
            You might look at the old book The Probability Broach. It is based upon the concept of a free society dealing with a nuclear terrorist trying to instill a government upon anarchists with the threat of nukes.

            • GalaneNo Gravatar says:

              I’ve read The Probability Broach. Smith tries to distract from some of the problems with the talking apes and monkeys and a highly improbable accelerated technological development.

              The most annoying part of that book is the protagonists claim to hate meddling by other people in their affairs, then once they figure out how to use the broach to access other dimensions, they proceed to commit some rather extreme acts of… meddling in the affairs of other people.

              The author is also one of those nits who claim slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the US Civil War, it was 100% economic oppression of the South by the North. In his alternate dimension’s history he has some obscure lawyer shot early in his career by some actor. Smith has a hate boner for President Lincoln.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Galene, we certainly see Smith’s writing through different lenses. I have read several of his novels and found them entertaining and basically right on in so far as his attitude towards individual liberty. As for his distaste for Lincoln, I share it. I dislike all politicians as lying, authoritarian scum. Though slavery was an issue in the War of Northern Aggression against the South, it was secondary to economic issues and the concept of the right to succeed. Slavery ended all around the world at about the same time for economic reasons. It would have ended here too not too much later than it did but without a bloody war which virtually destroyed the South.

      • MiNo Gravatar says:

        And it’s so likely to happen too? I know I have the spare case to spend on a nuke. And so many good reasons to own one too. They must think there are a lot of rich pyschos out there. There are, they’re called the government.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Robert, most libertarians seem to agree that there should be a line somewhere. I do not. Pragmatically speaking individuals will not be able to afford nukes except for in rare cases of the ultrarich or giant corporations where illegality would be meaningless anyway. What I think is needed is that the common man has available to him the common weapons that the military soldier has so as to be able to defend against said soldiers. Having anti tank guns and stinger missiles available would be appropriate.

      • Robert O'BrienNo Gravatar says:

        Fritz…while I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, I thank you for the intelligent discourse.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Robert, I also thank you sir. Much of the discord between Right and Left has to do with a priori assumptions which are typically not very readily changed by rational discourse. I try to keep an open mind for I realize that I am a fallible human who has made mistakes many times. That being said, I am very anti-authoritarian and thus do not respond well to the arguments from authority that both right and Left promulgate. I do think it is obvious that as the old sci-fi story The Weapons Shops of Isher put it, “the right to own weapons is the right to be free”. I personally do not own a gun, but I do not wish to alive in a society where the thugs, legal and crooks, have weapons and I can’t. A glance at history or just the present world situation shows that disarmed populaces are enslaved one way or another. I prefer freedom. It is an a priori thing!

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Radar, anarchism is simply the social system you have when freedom is your most important element. For the person who has the a priori belief that his own freedom is of paramount importance, anarchism becomes desirable. For those who desire control, power, or has an a priori belief that society determines ethics anarchism is anathema. Unfortunately in the real world men with guns make the ultimate decision as to what social systems prevail with little regard for rationality.

      • Hopper LizanoNo Gravatar says:

        Dictionary definitions versus application. Theory versus practice. Things get complicated that way.

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Pretty good! You statist types haven’t mustered up the guts to do the only thing that has ever put a black market out of business…

      …Legalize what it deals in. 😉

  22. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Hi everyone!

    It’s been so long! I just wanted to wish a happy new year to all my old friends on here: Mark, pyro, Bruce, Fritz, Ray, Huap, any anyone else I may have forgotten! Even though we disagreed a lot, and quite intensely, I enjoyed our debates.

    Now who wants to talk about Obama’s recent gun proposals? Or LaPierre’s video giving NRA’s response to the proposals? 🙂

    To think we’ve gotten to the point where the NRA makes a rebuttal video and as the main argument, it claims that the NRA is the only reason we have background checks in the first place! The NRA championing background checks? Never woulda believed it!

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Hi Babs! Good to read you again!
      You should check out Wendy McElroy’s blog, It has a discussion forum that some folks that write in these pages are in. It comes from an individualist anarchist viewpoint, but could stand more feminine input. Some very bright folks write there.
      Obama is a true believer in socialism/communism which is why he is so dangerous. His antigun agenda is treasonous in intent if not in law. Please realize that I do not own a gun and never have. But I realize that to keep what vestiges of freedom we have left, the common man needs to be armed nearly as well as the common soldier. So even the NRA is falling way short of where we should be. I do not wish to live in a society where only thugs (legal or not) will be armed. That is the ultimate goal of the collectivist, for they recognize that so long as the people are armed that government does not have the monopoly on violence necessary to promote the collectivist agenda on free men. Unfortunately my attitude reflects my a priori assumptions about life which differ from the collectivists’ a priori assumptions. Realistically I see little room for compromise in either position. Thus free men need weapons to defend our freedom from the collectivist’s hired thugs (government minions).
      I hope you choose to try McElroy'[s discussion forum. Take care.

  23. JoseNo Gravatar says:

    “An armed society is a polite society”. Yuck, yuck…

    “Last Updated Feb 6, 2016 5:49 PM EST

    At least four people died after a shootout in South Texas, which was followed by a standoff with police, CBS San Antonio affiliate KENS-TV reports.

    An official in Uvalde County confirmed the death toll to KENS-TV. The standoff with police ended around 1:30 p.m.

    Fire department officials told the station the standoff was inside a small mobile home park.

    Officials told the station that shots were fired at sheriff’s deputies.

    Border Patrol agents and the Texas Department of Public Safety assisted in the standoff, fire officials told the station.”

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Jose, an armed society tends towards politeness. There are always exceptions. Cops are seldom polite. They shoot you and usually get away with it. You shoot a cop and you are likely going to die or be incarcerated forever.

      • JoseNo Gravatar says:

        Which is why the U.S. keeps such polite company as Honduras, Venezuela, Swaziland, Guatemala, Jamaica, El Salvador, Colombia, Brazil, Panama, South Africa, and Uruguay. d_death_rate

        Looks like more guns, less politeness.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Jose, I think you are intentionally missing the point. Each country you list denies most folks the right to own weapons. When government thugs are armed they destroy politeness and institute terror. When common men are armed all folks tend to be more polite including government types.

          • JoseNo Gravatar says:

            Straw man. Why is the U.S.gun death rate up with these other countries? Why is it so high?

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Jose, why is Switzerland’s gun death rate so low? It all has to do with culture. Here we have lots of gang violence. If gang members kill each other I do not really care, but if government disarms us all to protect gang members then we all become slaves when government thugs are armed and common men are not. so I care little about gun death rates. I care about protecting individual liberty from authoritarian assholes.

              • JoseNo Gravatar says:

                So an armed society is not a polite society after all.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Jose, no. An armed SOCIETY is a polite society. An armed government is not an armed society.

                  • JoseNo Gravatar says:

                    You have yet to prove the oft quoted blanket statement “an armed society is a polite society” and have instead chosen to redirect. Maybe you read too much into Heinlein’s writing.

              • JoseNo Gravatar says:

                “The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States ( -u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually. ”


                • Fritzv KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Jose, I do love Heinlein’s writing, but you have the cart in front of the horse. I like the writing for it agrees largely with my perceptions of reality. In some places (like birthing) Heinlein was pretty ignorant.

                  Jose, I do not try to prove the statement that an armed society is a polite society. I simply think it would be so if we ever had a truly armed society which we do not. I do stipulate that your attempts to disprove the statement have fallen short for much the same reason. All your examples are of places where government thugs or revolutionaries are armed but the common man is not. I think that probably the best thing a rich guy could do to boost freedom in the world would be to start arming common men everywhere with inexpensive small arms so they could fight back against their oppressors.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    We have the highest amount of guns per capita in the world. That would seem to contradict your statement that we do not have an armed society.

                    Here are the top five countries in terms of guns per capita.

                    United States – 112.6
                    Serbia – 69.7
                    Yemen – 54.8
                    Switzerland – 45.7
                    Cyprus – 36.4

                    We almost double the rate of the second place. To say we are not an armed society is a hard argument to make if you consider the data.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs, are the stats for guns per capita inclusive of government’s weapons or just those in private hands? Those in governmental hands are not part of an armed society. I do not consider the USA to be a truly armed society for the vast majority of folks are not armed when out and about. An armed society would have more than half of folks choosing to carry weaponry and have it legal to do so. In such a society politeness would tend to come to the fore.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      The stats are for privately owned firearms and don’t include government issued weapons. Your implication that people are more polite because of the presence of firearms implies a threat and doesn’t seem like a very nice way of eliciting politeness. Most states have conceal carry permissions, people could carry if they desired to but I guess many people choose not to. I hope you support their choice 🙂

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs, I have a tough time believing that there are privately owned over 100 guns per capita in the USA. I know a few gun nuts (enthusiasts that is) who own maybe 50 guns each, but I only know one person who maybe has over 100 guns. I also know lots of folks who own zero guns. Perhaps these stats include manufacturers, though even then it is hard to believe. That would come to about 35 billion guns.

                      Babs, all human behavior is influenced by threats. The IRS threatens you with jailtime if you do not pay taxes. I too would prefer folks being polite out of “niceness”, but if being armed helps politeness I will not turn it down.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      That’s guns per ONE HUNDRED capita. googled “guns per capita US” and the correct labels came up.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              Why is our gun death rate so high? Well, you could start with the drug prohibition, subsequent black market, proximity to Mexico (which has TREMENDOUS gun control…) and the fact that neither of those prohibitions are worth a shit.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                The reason why the gun death rate is so high is directly related to easy access to guns. It is indirectly related to the other factors you mention, but without an easy access to guns, we wouldn’t be talking about gun deaths.

                I think everyone can agree that the biggest problem in the easy access to guns is the black market. The only way to combat the black market is by figuring out how the guns make it from the legal market onto the black market, which we mostly know, and aggressively attacking those positions by creating laws to stop the flow of legal guns into the black market.

                Remember, almost every gun originates in the legal market before ending up in the black market. This is all done by “good guys” who then give firearm access to “bad guys”.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Babs, Because of your political beliefs you see the gun death rate as a problem to be “handled” with more laws and government thugs with guns enforcing said laws. I see the gun deaths as a tragic but probably necessary consequence of living in a (semi) free society where weapon’s availability is what stands between we common men and government tyranny. All gun laws are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has sold out the Constitution for many decades. Free men should be promoting more people being armed at least as well as the average soldier to have the tools to fight back as necessary. Your advocacy of more gun control is socialistic pure and simple.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    I didn’t mention gun death rates in my post. Nothing you talked about addressed anything I said in my post. I talked about the black market and how it is created. I don’t see how my political beliefs factor into that.

                    Casting a blind eye at “good guys” selling guns to “bad guys”, something that is already against the law, in order to preserve some idea of freedom is absurd. You can have your freedom and still try and stop bad guys from getting guns. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. To say that your fellow countrymen have to die just so that you can maintain your personal idea of what America should be is selfish and un-American.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Forgot you can’t edit here. Apologies, I did mention them.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs, I do appreciate your honesty even though we seem totally at odds about guns. You are simply wrong to think that government can stop the “bad guys” from having guns but not infringe upon all of our freedoms. You forget that to the government anyone who believes that they have a right to defend their life, liberty, and property form government intrusion is a “bad guy”. Allowing government to decide who has a right to be armed is ceding all power to government which is the socialist concept. As an individualist anarchist I think the individual should decide for himself. Fuck the state and have a nice day!

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  Ah, the black market. The only way guns can be had in our southern neighbor… Where they are TREMENDOUSLY available to the cartels. How easy is their access? Much moreso for the criminals than the citizenry, eh? If you’re seeking a solution that curtails the black market, you should know that nobody has ever successfully defeated a black market until they removed the prohibition, and brought all purchases into the legal market. See: alcohol prohibition, colorado’s pot market. Otherwise, criminalizing more and more things has the same result as, (as they say) fighting hate with hate. It only makes a black market STRONGER, to criminalize more things. Eventually they have enough money to bribe senators, police chiefs, councilmen… and we end up like Mexico.
                  Also, there have been many claims that Mexico gets its guns from the US. Allow me to nip that in the bud: Mexican cartels primarily use AK-47s. AK-47s are not now, nor have they ever, been produced in the US. These guns come from one or another soviet satellite. And if they didn’t, it’s ridiculous to think that an organization which regularly sets up complicated chemical facilities to produce drugs would not also set up a much less sophisticated machine shop to produce guns. Does that happen? Yeah. In places that ban guns, like pre-Heller D.C.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:


                    Maybe you should re-read my post. I am not promoting making anything illegal that isn’t already. I don’t know if it can be broken down any simpler for you – the black market is created by “good guys” selling guns to “bad guys”. People like you complain about the black market and criminals getting firearms through it but resist targeting the people who provide the goods to be sold on the black market. Where is the logic in that?

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      You say you’re not promoting making anything illegal that isn’t already illegal, but then you say you want to “target” the people who were selling these guns… So what do you propose?
                      Recently been introduced to forward argument called “motte and Bailey”. It means that someone retreats to a safe argument when pressed, but as soon as the pressure is off, they go off and make a much broader claims. When pressed, it appears that your claim is that you don’t want to make anything illegal, but when the pressure is off you’re basically going back to “but we really have to stop doing this stuff”… So: how?

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs. the black market is created by government making illegal things that are desired by a population and would be available on a free market. In the case of weapons government is trying to disarm the citizenry by making more and more legal hoops to jump through. Your mistake is in promoting any laws curtailing the theme of the 2nd Amendment, that is that all citizens who desire be armed as well as the common soldier.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Pyro –

                      If you believe that certain people should not own firearms, then I would be willing to engage in a discussion on what methods should be employed to make it harder on the “bad guys” from acquiring firearms. If you are like Fritz who thinks everyone should be allowed to acquire firearms, then the discussion is pointless.

                      Fritz –

                      Yes, I know you think that anyone and everyone should be able to buy guns. The black market is created because certain things are illegal, yes. I can’t tell if you advocate that nothing be made illegal or if you just support that argument when it comes to firearms.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs, if you will note that we are writing on an anarchist site that will give you a clue! Law and freedom are antithetical. so I am for no government and thus no laws. But in the case of our world today, the ready availability of weapons is the common man’s only real protection from governmental tyranny. So the 2nd amendment is doubly important as the protection of various other freedoms. The
                      Supreme Court sold out the people by allowing the 2nd Amendment to be undermined. If Hillary becomes president then we will likely see the decimation of the 2nd Amendment. I would prefer civil war to that. And remember, I do not like guns personally and do not own one. But history and logic show that disarmed people are enslaved.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:


                      I don’t know what your personal beliefs are regarding anarchy or what branches of the philosophy you identify with, that’s why I ask. There will always be laws or rules, even if you eliminate the state. Any group of people have laws/rules to govern their interactions. Total lawlessness is a fantasy more than anything. We are social beings who want to belong to groups, we want to organize together, and we want to always better our lives as best we can. In order to do that, the best way is to team up with others, create groups, etc and to maintain order in these groups there will always be rules or laws. I personally don’t like this model but it seems the way that we are wired, at least most of us.

                      Regarding your comments about Hillary and the second amendment, I thought it was Obama who was going to destroy it and confiscate all the guns etc. Whatever happened to that? Now that such a theory has proven difficult to maintain, are you really going to keep going with it? Especially considering the fact that gun rights have only grown in the past 8 years and rather significantly.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      It isn’t about what *I* believe, you’re probably not going to tell me anything about how you intend to keep the guns away from the bad guys. I believe most of “the bad guys” are in jail for victimless crimes, and the numbers back me up on that.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:


                      I clearly said I would be willing to engage in a discussion but I don’t think it would be productive if you fundamentally believe that everyone should be able to acquire a weapon. Why respond to tell me what you don’t believe when it requires the same amount of effort and time to simply take a position and say what you do believe?

                      Should everyone be able to buy firearms or should some people be restricted?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      And I definitely agree that most are in jail for victimless crimes. I don’t think the system we have in place now fairly differentiates between those who should or shouldn’t have access to firearms.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs, to the extent that I fit into a grouping I am an individualist anarchist. As to rules within a social context being necessary for social interaction, I would state that such rules can be quite different than laws dictated by government. Individuals are quite competent to work out methodologies to get along without any de facto government.

                      Obama has done lots to hurt the second amendment. And he keeps trying to put restrictions on the availability of effective weapons to resist government armed thugs. It terrifies me to see Hillary’s agenda which seems to be Australian style confiscation. With 8 years to work who knows what evil she could do. Your statements that gun rights have grown in the past 8 years significantly blows my mind. It seems just the opposite to me. In any case, all laws abridging the individual’s right to own and bear arms are in truth unconstitutional, but even were they legal they would be antithetical to individual liberty. All people should be able to be armed. No government should be able to decide who can or can’t have weapons. Remember the quote from the Weapon’s Shops of Isher, “The right to won weapons is the right to be free”.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “should” is irrelevant. I’m living in the real world, where $5 at Home Depot anyone can can buy the parts which will build a functioning gun.
                      Are you asking if I want to OUTLAW that capability? Because you’re still asking a question with no realistic answer. But let’s play your game. Let’s say I believe that people who have sought political office should not have a gun. Or a car, for that matter, if Chappaquiddick is any indication. But let’s see where you’ll go from here. You are on record as stating ” I am not promoting making anything illegal that isn’t already.”. So ok, there’s this one asshat I don’t think should have a gun.
                      Where do we go from here?
                      In MY world, I just won’t sell his ass a gun, and that’s the end of the story.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:


                      This is why precisely why I asked you the simple question that you’re really struggling to answer. You have shown that you don’t want to engage in the discussion, you simply want to attack and rant. You would rather go on about politicians and the non-existent threat of people making their own firearms from home depot than talk about whether certain groups of people (violent criminals) should be able to legally buy firearms. That’s fine, I don’t mind – I just view it as a waste of my time.

  24. Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

    figures do not lie, but liars figure. And other similar quotes on statistics.

    How about starting with this, which I have seen nowhere else.:

    And yes, it is racist, but if you actually read the site, and go to the link at the bottom, you will see why I argue that the cause of all these problems is rich white men, and that the problems are maintained by rich white folks in business combined with blacks who profit off of the black victimhood industry, like Coates, Sharpton ad Jackson

    In the next few days I will add the 10 most black states and the 10 states with the highest homicide rates.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Is the conclusion here that levels of violence is related to the pigmentation of one’s skin? Or could it be that crime is concentrated in urban areas? And where there is crime, there will be more homicides?

      I think it’s also important to look at cities instead of entire states since a lot of the time it is one or two cities that are responsible for the high homicide rate and it isn’t as much a reflection of the state’s rate.

      Good for you that you’re breaking down the numbers and looking for patterns. Most of us don’t even get that far.

  25. You are so awesome! I don’t think I’ve truly read through anything like this before.
    So nice to find someone with some unique thoughts on this subject matter.

    Seriously.. thanks for starting this up. This site is something that’s needed on the web, someone with a little originality!

  26. pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

    bah, typo in my email address had me showing up as a new, different face. 😛