Comparison of death tolls in shooting rampages
Davi Barker does a study of 93 mass killings (narrowing them to thirty where either police or a civilian stopped the crime) and finds--
"The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3."
Gee - I wonder why that might be???
Posted by: Rich at December 9, 2012 11:29 AM
sorry forgot the end tag \
Posted by: rich at December 9, 2012 11:30 AM
So is it fair to tell folks that "civilians are more than 6 times as effective as cops when it comes to saving the lives of innocents"? "Six times" is easy to remember, and is a number(most) people can understand.
Posted by: wrangler5 at December 10, 2012 12:42 PM
"So is it fair to tell folks that "civilians are more than 6 times as effective as cops when it comes to saving the lives of innocents"? "
No. In those incidents where the police ultimately ended the shooting spree, numerous "civilians" failed to act. Had those "civilians" acted, the death tolls would have been lower. What this analysis demonstrates is that early intervention saves lives and that the advice to victims to hide (which is declining in popularity) is extremely bad advice. When faced with an active shooter, counter-attack as aggressively as your circumstances allow.
I put "civilian" in quotes because police officers are civilians too.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 10, 2012 12:53 PM
Part of the problem may be that civilians, (non-police) may act more aggressively than the police to stop the shooting. Sadly how many times do you read about the police waiting outside the perimeter and only going in when everything seems to be quiet. The person on the scene has a vested interest in stopping the attack more often than not.
And yes I conclude that being armed is much better in general then waiting for the police
Posted by: Rich at December 10, 2012 05:02 PM