When it comes to discussions about emotionally charged subjects, it’s incredibly important to be rational, calm, and to use good data to understand the situation and to make good decisions about how to deal with the situation.
These days, it seems that this is an unpopular way to approach these types of discussions. After all, rational and calm aren’t exactly how you would typically describe the rage bating sound bite “gotcha” videos and speeches that we see on social media and in Congress.
Very often, those venues are anything but rational and calm.
And there’s a human nature element that at least partly explains what drives that compulsion to stick to the emotional “argument.”
That element? Everybody loves drama. Whether it’s drama played out in John Wick violence or the emotional drama of Lifetime made for TV movies or soap operas…
or discussions about how to stop active shooters.
All of these get emotions up. But too little real world data comes into play in those discussions (and when it does, it often gets shouted down with yells about “the children.” As if data wouldn’t help us to figure out exactly what is happening and why exactly so that we can save more children’s lives.).
Fortunately, though, the data is out there for those willing to take the time to look (hat tip to here for the lead).
Probably the biggest aspect that you hear argued about how to stop active shooters is whether an armed person on site or waiting on a law enforcement officer is better. Depending on your position on the Second Amendment, you’ll likely take one side or the other.
But when you look at real data without trying to doctor it to fit your preferred narrative, it’s very clear about which saves more lives. John R. Lott and Carlisle E. Moody write,
Our research shows that armed civilians reduce the number of killed, wounded, and total casualties by more than uniformed police officers do. This outcome doesn’t reflect poorly on law enforcement—it highlights the tactical disadvantages uniformed officers face. Uniforms make them easy targets, and their delayed arrival gives attackers more time to cause harm. These results lend support to a larger conclusion: allowing armed civilians in public areas increases safety, while gun-free zones make the public more vulnerable. That finding aligns with other research showing that the vast majority of mass public shootings occur in areas where civilians cannot legally carry firearms (Lott, 2010; Crime Prevention Research Center, 2025). Our results also provide some evidence that Constitutional Carry laws reduce the number of attacks.
It really is clear cut.
Legal gun owners on site when an active shooter incident happens and who are carrying their firearm save lives.
That is the simple unvarnished truth, and it’s yet another reason why you should train with proficiency with your firearm, continue to train to remain proficient, and carry daily.
