Armed Citizens Succeed 94% or the Time at Active Shooter Events


Jacob Paulsen of examined 283 total Active Shooter events from FBI data. Of that number, an armed citizen was present and engaged the active shooter in 33 incidents (11.7 percent).

It includes armed citizens who were near the event and not present at the actual event. In another incident, the victims were hunters ambushed by the killer. and not attempting to stop an attacker.

In the research by John Lott and the FBI, they didn’t consider the success rate of armed citizens and they didn’t consider opportunity, aka, gun-free zones.

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life, Paulsen found

In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the incident with the hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator, according to the study.


The study also considered non-gun-free zones compared with gun-free zones.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones. Almost twice as many attacks took place in gun-free zones than non-gun-free zones.

Of the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened, Paulsen says.


The position of the left is to not allow citizens to use guns in self-defense. For example, a U.S. university in Detroit gave out hockey pucks to students and staff. They are being trained in how to use them.

Which do you find more logical in facing an active shooter? A hockey puck or a gun? Let’s get real.



Courtesy of:



Leave a Reply