You’d never hear it from watching tv, but civilians , stop more effective guns than police , and do so with , fewer errors, according to new studies from the Crime Prevention Research Center, where I serve as president. In , non-gun-free areas, where citizens are lawfully able to carry weapons, concealed carry permit holders , stopped 51.5 percent of active murders, compared to , 44.6 percentage stopped by officers, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter cases between 2014 and 2023.
Not only do force holders succeed in stopping active guns at a , higher level, but law enforcement officers face , considerably greater risks  , when adjacent. Our analysis found police were , almost six times more likely to get killed , and , 17 percent more likely to become wounded , than armed citizens.
Those statistics paint a fuller picture than the FBI’s crime records, which fail to include many of the protective gun uses my business has cataloged. But the trouble with the FBI’s violence statistics isn’t just the errors in their reported data — they also fail to handle important questions, like how concealed weapon 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.
