Skip to comments.Ed Schultz: "We've Never Had a Civilian Stop a Shooting"
Posted on 01/12/2013 1:35:19 AM PST by Kaslin
Yeah, he really said this:
NBC's Ed Schultz Lies About Civilians Disarming Mass Shooters
Where did he get this idea? Jack Coleman over at NewsBusters thinks the claim originated from a Mother Jones article written in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, but Schultz doesnt source the statement. The Mother Jones report states: In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. (According to the criteria used in their research, a mass shooting is when the "shooter took the lives of at least four people.")
When armed civilians or off-duty police officers are present in active shooter scenarios they respond quicklyusually preventing the situation from becoming a mass shooting. For example, in 2007, former police officer Jeanne Assam volunteered to work security at her church in Colorado and prevented a mass shooting:
Jeanne Assam Saves The Day
There was also the recent incident of a gunman opening fire at the Mayan Palace Theatre in San Antonio just days after the Connecticut shooting. An off-duty cop stopped the gunman.
Gunman Shoot Gun at San Antonio MovieTheater Mayan Palace Theatre
Of course, there are other examples of civilians preventing mass shootings. Mark Hemingway over at The Weekly Standard provides more examples:
-- Winnemuccas, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif. 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
Believe what you will, Mr. Schultz, but its more accurate to say that "civilians" have prevented more mass shootings than gun-free zones have.
Aside from the fact that there have been “civilians” who have stopped shooters, there is one other point to consider.
Schultz and his ilk have prevented it from happening more often by establishing their “gun free zones” which most gun owners (being a respectful lot, by and large) abide by.
Has anyone done a study on how this violence has increased dramatically since we started mainstreaming students with mental disabilities? How many of these mass shootings have occurred since the mentally deficient have been placed in the normal kids rooms? How many of these shooters have been on prescribed drugs to adjust their behavior isms? When will the psychiatrists be held responsible?
Think of all the mass shootings that were deterred because of the armed good guys. One that comes to mind was the recent Dallas Mavericks victory parade after they won the NBA Title. This was a prime opportunity for urban thugs to go on a riotous rampage with widespread violence and loss of life. It never happened. Why? Because the good people of Texas are armed and the feral savages know better than to mess with a gun-carrying Texan. Thankfully, we have an abundance of Conservatives here who respect the Second Amendment and carry. Even at my church, we gun owners (and yes, that includes the preacher), take our weapons to worship. And, not surprisingly, we’ve never had a robbery or any other form of criminal activity.
So, if someone stops a murderer at three fatalities, it doesn’t count toward the stopping of a mass murder?
One could also probably mention the Clakamas mall shootings. When an armed citizen drew down on the shooter (Jacob Roberts) the gunman fled the immediate vicinity and took his own life moments later.
What people on the left don’t seem to get, and as my brother-in-law (a former member of the Cleveland PD, btw) points out, you will *never* completely prevent these shootings from happening. There will always be some nut who manages to get his hands on a weapon no matter what laws you pass. What we *can* do, however, is lessen the scope of the tragedy by making sure that there are good guys with guns around to keep it from being an even bigger tragedy.
Really Ed? Here is a case from just a few days ago:
One of many every month I would imagine...doesn’t the NRA have a whole website full of examples?
Tell that useless waste of skin directly: email@example.com
My message to Ed:
Well, Ed, I’d normally chalk up the fact that you said that to mendacity. After all, most thinking humans would understand that if a potential mass shooting was successfully stopped, it WOULDN’T END UP BEING A MASS SHOOTING. And there are in fact MANY examples of armed citizens doing EXACTLY that, namely stopping a mass shooting!
But in your case, I’m going to have to attribute what you said to just pure stupidity (or brain damage from chronic alcoholism?) instead of ill intent.
I’d say seek help, but frankly, the world will be better off if you don’t.
Eddie, stop passing the pipe around. Ain’t going to inhale!
Their criteria is interesting and of course faulty. If one is armed and stops a mass shooting by downing the shooter before he gets his kill number above three then the incident is not included in the findings. Very shrewd.
The problem here is that one can claim that it is impossible to know whether the shooter intended a mass shooting, or had just planned to shoot less than 4 anyway.
It’s kind of a stupid claim, but is being made by implication.
OK, here’s the deal.
Where I live, people can fire guns on their property. I often hear my friends and neighbors happily plinking away at cans. If there are thugs driving around looking for a soft target, I’m sure they hear it, too. And if they drive on in search of a softer target, then my friends and neighbors are safe for another day. How is that bad?
And if there’s some chucklehead wanna-be g-banger in the car, maybe he/she will hear those shots and decide that crime is too risky a way to make his/her fortune and turn away from it. How is that bad?
I these cases, I would consider it very likely...indeed probable...that a civilian “stopped” a shooting. HOW IS THAT BAD?
I wouldn’t waste a good bullet saving Special Ed.
Don’t cloud the issue with facts.
About the Mayan prediction of the end of the world. All you have to do is go read the Bible and what Jesus said about it. Namely that no one knows when the end comes, not even he. Only the Father does
I nominate this, the second section, for common sense post of the day.
Do I see a second?