You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according to new research from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC).
CPRC President John Lott Jr., said, “In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5% of active shootings, compared to 44.6% stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.”
Lott said, “Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.”
Lott said that those numbers paint a fuller picture than the FBI’s crime statistics, which fail to include many of the defensive gun uses his organization has cataloged. But the problem with the FBI’s crime statistics isn’t just the errors in their reported data ‚Äî they also fail to address useful questions, like how concealed handgun permit holders compare to law enforcement. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino face a major challenge in reforming how the data is collected and reported at the FBI, Lott said.
What CPRC Found
From 2014 to 2023, CPRC researchers found that armed civilians stopped 180 of 515 active shooting cases. Of the attacks in places where people were allowed to carry, CPRC found that permit holders stopped 158 of the 307 instances. The FBI defines an “active shooting” as an event where an individual actively attempts to kill people in a public place ‚Äî excluding shootings tied to robberies or gang violence. An “active shooting” could be as simple as a single shot fired at a lone human target, even if the shooter misses, to a mass shooting.
Lott said, “The Crime Prevention Research Center’s findings tell a very different story than the narrative you’ll see in the corporate press.”
Of the 180 total instances where an armed civilian stopped an active shooting, did permit holders end up accidentally shooting bystanders? In just one case, Lott said, or 0.56 percent.
Armed Citizen Stats
Other CPRC research showed:
- Did armed civilians interfere with police? In zero cases (0.0 percent).
- Did armed civilians lose their lives in the confrontation? In two cases (1.1 percent).
- Were armed civilians injured while saving lives? In 44 cases (24.4 percent).
- Did armed civilians prevent a mass public shooting? In 58 cases (32 percent).
- Did armed civilians have their gun taken away? In one case (0.56 percent).
Lott said, “Civilians don’t succeed in stopping every active shooter situation, but the alternative isn’t perfection. Police officers are often at a disadvantage because their uniforms make them obvious targets, while civilians can stop an attacker before being noticed. Compare the numbers from active shootings stopped by police versus those stopped by armed civilians, and permit holders stack up pretty well.”
Law Enforcement-Involved Shootings
Regarding Law Enforcement-involved shootings, CPRC found:
- In the 156 cases stopped by law enforcement, police accidentally shot the wrong person in four cases, killing fellow officers twice and civilians twice. That’s more than double the rate of civilians accidentally shooting a bystander (1.14 percent compared to 0.56 percent).
- Twenty-seven police were shot and killed while trying to stop an active shooter, a 7.7 percent rate, which is nearly six times higher than the rate for permit holders.
- One hundred police were wounded, a 28.6 percent rate, compared to 24.4 percent for permit holders.
- Police never had their guns taken away from them.
Lott said, “These findings highlight a reality that is often ignored: responsible gun owners save lives. Concealed handgun permit holders aren’t reckless vigilantes, but they are law-abiding citizens who step up in moments of crisis when seconds matter and police are minutes away.”
This information is amazing. It seems like all this anti gun rhetoric could actually cause more physical harm to our communities if our arms are removed from us. Our forefathers really knew what they were talking about with the 2nd amendment.