Probably not, which is unfortunate, but the reason you've never heard of her is because in 2010 she held a gunman at bay, until officers arrived and shot him.
Her name is Carolyn Gudger.
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:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/09/3127388/fresno-man-was-gunman-in-madera.html
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: ed@edschultzshow.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.
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.
LLS
Probably not, which is unfortunate, but the reason you've never heard of her is because in 2010 she held a gunman at bay, until officers arrived and shot him.
Her name is Carolyn Gudger.
Another useful idiot.
Ed. I knew you were stupid, but you are even more stupid than I imagined.
The reason civilians have not stopped the most famous mass shootings is that they took place in locations where civilians were NOT allowed to carry guns. In other words, the bad guy was the ONLY person who had a gun!
Does that make sense to you?
What you said is equivalent to saying, “Lifeguards have not prevented a single drowning in places where there were no lifeguards. Therefore, we shouldn’t have lifeguards anywhere.”
Great post!
I’ like to know how many (and who they are!) of these rabid anti-FReedom jerks have their own armed security guards?
Would make a hellofapost!
Seems we have another example of allowing the libs to control the terms of the conversation.
The incidents in which an armed citizen interrupted a lunatic shooter and the death toll stays at three or less, generally would NOT be counted as ‘mass shooting’ incidents.
And, the frequency of mass shootings is such that the Feds don’t even track it as a statistic.
As long as we allow the socialists to set the terms of the debate, we will lose.
Some years ago, someone walked into a cafe in Texas and began shooting. Nobody in that cafe was armed, because they’d left their weapons out in their vehicles. (You can’t bring a firearm into a place that serves alcohol,)
How’d you feel if you were sipping a brewski there and then, and had left your pistol back under your car’s front seat? Chagrined?
The article needs updating, but see the Luby’s cafeteria entry: http://worldnews.about.com/od/crime/tp/Worlds-Worst-Mass-Shootings.htm