New research from the College of William and Mary and the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows armed civilians are more effective than police at stopping active shooting attacks on the public. Armed civilians are more likely to stop the attacks without being injured or killed. Armed civilians stop more attacks than do police. Police in the United States stop almost as many attacks as are stopped by armed civilians.

For decades, Second Amendment advocates have considered it to be common sense that armed civilians would be more effective at stopping active shooter attacks on the public than police. To people familiar with firearms, shooting, and defensive tactics, who thoughtfully considered active shooting attacks on the public, such outcomes seemed obvious. Those without such a background sometimes considered the opposite to be true. Such persons would cite a lack of training, lower skill levels, and a general distrust of the ability of non-police to make good decisions in such fast-moving crisis situations.

The paper was published on April 3, 2025, by authors John R. Lott, Jr. and Carlisle E. Moody. From 2014 through 2023, using FBI data and a number of other public sources, researchers were able to identify 512 active shooter incidents that conformed to the FBI definition. Of the 512 incidents, 158 were stopped by police, and 179 were stopped by armed citizens. There were 177 where the shooter stopped or was stopped without intervention by armed civilians or police. These cases include incidents where the attacker committed suicide before police arrived, was subdued by unarmed people, was not apprehended, or was arrested in a different location.  About 8% of adults have concealed carry permits, while about 7.2% of likely voters self-report they carry firearms all of the time, and another 8.4% of voters self-report they carry some of the time.

Two armed civilians attempting to stop active attackers were killed a probability of about 1% of an armed civilian being killed per successful stopping of an attack. One of the two deaths was where responding police shot and killed the armed civilian after the active shooting attack was stopped.  Twenty-six police were killed while attempting to stop active shooting attackers, a probability of about 17% of a police officer being killed per successful stopping of the attack. This is explained in part by active attackers deliberately targeting uniformed police officers.  No police were killed by responding armed civilians.

Incidents, where armed civilians stopped the attack, averaged about half as many people being killed as in the average active shooter incident. Incidents, where police stopped the attack, averaged about 17% more people killed than in the average active shooting incident. This is explained, in part, because armed civilians stop active shooting incidents much more quickly than police do. If an active shooting incident continues long enough for police to respond, it is likely more people will be killed before the police arrive.

Analysis: The academic paper’s results validate the intuitive understanding of Second Amendment advocates.

The results should calm the fears of those who believed armed civilians would cause more difficulties than they would solve. The explanations for such lopsided results are not hard to understand.

Armed civilians tend to carry weapons because of personal considerations. They have consciously decided to carry, mostly for purposes of defense of self and others.  Many police officers carry because it is a job requirement for them to carry. The incentives of the two groups are different. People who have decided to carry for the defense of themselves and others have strong incentives to develop marksmanship skills and to study defensive situations and tactics. This correspondent and numerous others have noted many armed civilians have skills that exceed that of the average police officer. Many armed civilians have experience as former police and military.  Having taught hundreds of students in concealed carry classes, this correspondent believes people who carry firearms for their own defense and that of others tend to be of higher intelligence, income levels, and education levels.

Armed civilians have three major advantages over police officers in stopping active shooting attacks on the public. First, they are likely to be inside the situation rather than outside responding to it, giving them an enormous time advantage. They can respond much faster than the police. Second, they are not obvious to the attacker, giving them a tactical advantage of surprise. Third, because they are much closer in time and distance from the attack than the police, they have significant advantages in tactical knowledge of the situation.

It is understandable for people who are not interested in firearms or in carrying them for self-defense to misunderstand the dynamics of armed civilians responding to active shooting attacks against the public. The paper discusses how those fears are misplaced.

Approximately 8% of adults are armed civilians who routinely and legally carry firearms for the defense of themselves and others. This is about 22 million people in the United States of America.  There are about .67 million sworn and armed police officers. There are about 33 armed civilians for every armed police officer. There are about a hundred armed civilians for every police officer on duty at any given time. It is not surprising armed civilians stop more active shooting incidents than the police do and stop them faster and with fewer deaths and injuries than the police do.

NYC Court Holds Stun Guns are NOT Protected by Second Amendment

Non-Violent Gun Convictions Deserve Trump’s Attention

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.