Armed civilians stop shooting attacks more frequently and face a lower risk of being killed than police.Despite being disarmed, Australians still fought the jihadis. But the courageous defenders couldn’t legally shoot back. Their government had disarmed them.
Neither the Australian nor Canadian governments trust citizens to own and use guns for personal protection. In contrast, the United States has the Second Amendment which protects the right of armed civilians to protect themselves, their families and their community.
Recent research by John Lott and Carlisle Moody examines the effectiveness of both uniformed police and civilians with concealed handgun permits in stopping attacks by active shooters.
Courageous Australians — with their bare hands — tried to stop the Muslim killers who attacked the Bondi Beach gathering on the first day of Hanukkah. A few instances of bravery stand out. One man ran up to the bridge where a jihadi was shooting and kicked his gun away before he, despite holding his hands up in surrender, was shot by police. An older couple were killed attempting to disarm one of the jihadis.
Don’t rely on the police
According to news reports, the police froze for 20 minutes – even after a few Australians began fighting back. While the police cowered behind parked cars, courageous citizens were left to throw rocks at the terrorists or use their bare hands to grapple with their murderers.
Under both Canadian and Australian law, very strict rules make it all but impossible for civilians to use guns for protection. Even when it might be technically allowed, authorities make it extraordinarily difficult [and expensive] for citizens to defend themselves with a firearm. Police routinely arrest anyone brave enough to use a firearm defensively and then drag them through painful and expensive legal proceedings. So even though the Australian hero had wrestled the gun away from a terrorist, he faced being arrested had he shot at the terrorist.
“A Communist system can be recognized by the fact that
it spares the criminals and criminalizes the political opponent.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Gun laws fail to protect the public
Reflecting the partisan biases of the Australian Labor Party, the police allowed the terrorists to obtain guns despite knowing about their links with ISIS. In Canada, Liberals ban legal guns owned by hunters and sport shooters but allow repeat offenders, even violent offenders, out on bail again and again.
Gun laws fail to stop criminal violence. Violent crime is out of control in Canada. Crimes committed by organized crime have increased by over 170% since 2016 (from 4,810 to 13,056 crimes). Since 2015, total homicides have increased by 29% (from 613 victims to 788), while firearms homicide has increased by 58% (from 181 victims to 286) in the same period.
Gun bans fail to stop terrorist attacks. Strict Australian gun laws did not stop the mass shooting at Bondi Beach during Hanukkah. Driving an SUV, a murderer assaulted a Filipino market festival in Vancouver, BC, killing more than 11 people and seriously injuring 32 others; no guns were involved. Flouting gun laws, the murderer in the Nova Scotia rampage obtained his guns illegally. Like a typical criminal, he did not have a Firearm Licence.
Gun-free zones are unsafe
In the US, attacks are overwhelmingly committed in gun-free zones where victims are sitting ducks. The problem isn’t “guns.” Allowing civilians to own and use firearms does not threaten public safety. Millions of Canadians own firearms, and they have an estimable record of being peaceable and law-abiding. For further support, see here.
Armed citizens are an asset
In the US, peer-reviewed research shows that armed civilians help keep the public safe. American police frequently say they trust armed civilians to help defend their communities from thugs and terrorists. Despite being every bit as responsible and virtuous as Americans, Canadian civilians are legally hampered from defending themselves, their families, or their communities with a firearm, or with any weapon.
Recent research by John Lott and Carlisle E. Moody examines the effectiveness of both uniformed police and civilians with concealed handgun permits in stopping attacks by active shooters.
Armed citizens stop active shooter attacks
Based on FBI active shooting cases, Lott and Moody found that civilians with permits reduce the number of victims killed, the number wounded, and the total number of casualties more than responding police officers do. They also stop the attacks more frequently and face a lower risk of being killed or injured than police.
The evidence supports the role of armed citizens in stopping active shooter attacks. Unlike uniformed police, armed civilians are already present when an attack begins, and they do not appear to pose an immediate threat to the shooter.
Also, armed citizens do not appear to interfere with the police or blunder so badly as to get their weapon taken away by the shooter or kill the wrong person.
Critics argue that civilians lack the training police receive and may make things worse by intervening. But the data directly contradict that concern. Armed civilians don’t interfere with police or shoot bystanders—and they consistently prevent more injuries and deaths than uniformed officers during active shooter events. They are also less likely to be killed stopping such events than are the police.
Armed civilians help keep the public safe. Gun laws fail to protect the public. Be prepared for a jihadi attack on a Christmas public gathering.
