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, where I serve as president. In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.

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.

Those numbers paint a fuller picture than the FBI’s crime statistics, which fail to include many of the defensive gun uses my organization has cataloged. But the problem with the FBI’s crime statistics isn’t just the errors in their reported data — 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.

What we 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, we 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 — 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.

The Crime Prevention Research Center’s findings tell a very different story than the narrative you’ll see on television.

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 (0.56 percent).

Did they interfere with police? In zero cases (0.0 percent).

Did they lose their lives in the confrontation? In two cases (1.1 percent).

Were they injured while saving lives? In 44 cases (24.4 percent).

Was the shooting they prevented likely to be a mass public shooting? In 58 cases (32 percent).

Did they have their gun taken away? In one case (0.56 percent).

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.

In the 156 cases stopped by law enforcement, we found 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).

According to our research, 27 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.

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.

TV Isn’t Reality
Even though law-abiding citizens who carry concealed firearms stop active shootings with few mistakes — in some cases with fewer mistakes than police — TV police dramas portray armed civilians as causing more harm than good in self-defense situations. These shows repeatedly push the idea that civilians shouldn’t play the hero and should instead leave everything to the police. Concealed handgun permit holders are portrayed as reckless vigilantes who leave a disaster behind them: accidentally shooting bystanders, interfering with law enforcement, failing to protect themselves, or even having their guns stolen and misused in crimes or accidental shootings.

Gun control organizations openly brag about working with producers, directors, and writers to push their gun control narrative. And many in Hollywood proudly admit their efforts to use television and movies to change the culture.

Heroic citizens stopping bad guys would be just as interesting to watch as police stopping crimes, but permit holders are rarely portrayed that way on television. This reluctance to show normal good guys with guns endangers public safety by fostering a false perception that armed civilians are more of a threat than a solution.

If we truly care about public safety, we should acknowledge the proven role that responsible gun owners play in stopping violent attacks — rather than avoiding the truth for the sake of an anti-gun agenda.

Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
You mean an armed populace mitigates crime because police can't realistically everywhere? Unpossible.

Originally Posted By NotIssued:
Who stops the other 3.9%?

Originally Posted By Czechers:
I think this really needs a breakdown of which departments invest resources in good combat firearms and tactics training.  I was with our big metro PD for over 10 years starting in the early 90's and they'd let you shoot all the damn time and offered some really good combat pistol and SG courses, two gun, low light, etc. with no restrictions on how often you could take them.  We had good patrol tactics and warrant execution schools and our dept was known for officers rushing into schools without hesitation during active shooters going well before Columbine. We had nationally known firearms trainers that were active officers on the firearms/academy training staff. Full time, multi-squad SWAT team with a great dedicated training facility.  SWAT initially was doing all the carbine training for patrolmen when AR's were authorized again in the early 2000's. Lumping a dept like this in with "guns are icky" departments like NYPD (and incompetent ones like Uvalde) is a little disingenuous.

Originally Posted By TAG_Match:


I read it yesterday and didn’t pick up that the stats suggest that the police are not competent, willing, or not sufficiently equipped to deal with active shooters.  My take was that when armed public were present, they surpassed LEO marginally because they had the opportunity to stop the killing first.

Originally Posted By hodgescl:
Also who is on scene first, with first hand knowledge of the incident from the beginning vs who shows up halfway through with third hand info that may or may not still be accurate or relevant time wise.

Originally Posted By ICEAGE:



Uvalde was a sad situation. Absolutely pathetic.  But its the reality of the world.  Another big issue with Uvalde is nobody was an actual leader. All it takes is one guy with a 'Fuck it I'm going' mentality and at least someone will follow him....




Statistically speaking most active shooters fold under pressure. They go down almost immediately and/or retreat and kill themselves, or abandon plan and try to escape. All it really takes is 1 guy willing to confront and engage them with a gun.....