Dr. John Lott has a new op-ed at The Federalist.
.
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% of active shootings, compared to 44.6% 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 in the corporate press.
.
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).
Did they prevent 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).
Twenty-seven 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.
John R. Lott, Jr., “Study: Concealed Carriers Do A Better Job Of Stopping Active Shooters Than Police,” The Federalist, March 11, 2025.
Great information for civilians not to blindly wait for police to save them.
Well of course CCL holders do! When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5% of active shootings, …”
Perhaps it is nitpicking, but does “concealed carry permit holder” EXCLUDE other weapons carriers who do not have a “permission slip”?
Or was it sloppy writing to say CCW when instead it is inclusive of ANY weapons carry method including OPEN carry or running back to the car for a weapon?
Thanks, CBT. It turns out that the people who are stopping these attacks are people who have concealed handgun permits.