Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
https://youtu.be/lLfTDTxL2X8?si=McXDuYSPRSUtDh7RFrom 2014 to 2022, armed civilians not only stopped more active shooter incidents than police, but they also saved more lives and made fewer mistakes.
The FBI tracks active shooting cases—where individuals attempt to kill people in public places, excluding those tied to robberies or gang violence. This study is the first to systematically compare how uniformed police and civilians with concealed handgun permits perform in stopping these attacks. Civilians with permits stopped the attacks more frequently and faced a lower risk of being killed or injured than police. Officers who intervened during the attacks were far more likely to be killed or injured than those who apprehended the attackers later.
Civilians will inevitably make mistakes and won’t stop every active shooter situation, and most don’t receive the same level of training as police. So, it’s reasonable to expect that, on average, police might perform better in confronting active shooters. Indeed, it is possible that permit holders could make active shooting attacks worse by getting in the way. But the right comparison isn’t against perfection. Police officers often face tactical disadvantages because their uniforms make them easy targets. Attackers who see a uniformed officer can wait for the officer to leave, move on to another target, or strike first knowing the officer is armed.
Surveys show that 7.2% of likely voters carry all the time, and another 8.4% carry some of the time
states with a constitutional carry law experience 16.7 percent fewer people killed in active shooter incidents, presumably because there are more armed citizens available in public places.
Armed citizens reduce the number of people wounded in active shooter incidents by 41 percent while the police have no significant effect... Constitutional carry laws reduce the number of people wounded by 11 percent
There are different estimates for rates of armed citizens getting injured, but the probability is around 25%the probability of an armed citizen being killed while attempting to stop an active shooter is one percent. The corresponding probabilities for police officers responding to an active shooter incident is 16.5 percent.
Overall, it is safer for first responders if they are already on the premises, respond quickly carrying a concealed weapon, and not wearing a uniform.
Although the probability that the police will shoot the wrong person is over 10 times higher that of armed citizens, both probabilities are very small and the difference between them is not significantly different from zero, almost certainly because both events are extremely rare.
In every case we analyzed, armed citizens who stopped active shooter events significantly reduced the chances of victim injury or death compared to when police intervened.
The results favor intervention by armed citizens. Unlike uniformed police officers, armed citizens are already on the scene and don’t stand out as obvious threats to a shooter. In contrast, police face significant disadvantages. They rarely happen to be present when an attack begins, and if a potential attacker sees an officer nearby, he’s likely to either wait for the officer to leave the area or move on to a new target. Shooters who decide not to alter their plans will likely choose to attack the visible uniformed officers first. While taking on an officer may not be easy, it becomes the first objective when the shooter sees that the officer is armed and in uniform.
This analysis does not factor in cost effectiveness (to society). I believe if cost effectiveness was considered the results would be FAR more pronounced. Armed citizens (who are trained and equipped on their own dime) are many hundreds of times cheaper than law enforcement officers (who are paid at taxpayer expense). Armed citizens cost the taxpayers nothing, so judged on taxpayer cost efficiency the difference is essentially infinity.Our findings show that armed citizens are significantly more effective than uniformed police at stopping potential mass shootings. This result isn’t a criticism of law enforcement, it simply reflects the tactical realities they face. Their uniforms make them visible targets, and longer response times give attackers more opportunity to cause harm. These results also suggest a broader conclusion: having armed citizens dispersed throughout public spaces improves public safety. Conversely, gun-free zones are likely to be counterproductive, a view supported by other research showing that the overwhelming majority of mass public shootings happen in such zones (Lott, 2010, Crime Prevention Research Center, 2025).
Armed citizens are not trained like police officers as to the correct response to an active shooter event. Consequently, they could make the situation worse by inserting themselves into the event. Our analysis soundly rejects that idea. In fact, we find the opposite to be true: armed citizens do not interfere with police, and in active shooter situations, they reduce deaths and injuries significantly more effectively than the police.
