Featured Image: yourNEWS Media Illustration
A new analysis by researcher John Lott identifies 225 active shooter incidents stopped by armed civilians between 2014 and 2025, challenging FBI figures that credit armed citizens with intervening successfully in fewer than 4% of cases.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Armed civilians stopped more than one-third of active shooter incidents in the United States between 2014 and 2025, according to a new analysis by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) that challenges federal statistics on the frequency of defensive gun use during public shootings.
CPRC President John Lott reported that armed citizens stopped 225 of 615 active shooter incidents identified by his organization during the 12-year period, representing 36.6% of cases. The figure is nearly 10 times the percentage reflected in FBI reports, which credited armed civilians with stopping 16 of 408 incidents, or 3.9%.
Lott presented the findings in an Oct. 23 article published by the Crime Prevention Research Center, arguing that federal records have repeatedly omitted or misclassified cases in which legally armed citizens intervened during attacks.
The discrepancy has significant implications for how defensive gun use is represented in national crime statistics and public discussions about firearm policies.
Lott, who served as a senior adviser for research and statistics in the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs during President Donald Trump’s first administration, said he began identifying problems while reviewing FBI active shooter reports.
“I discovered that the reports omitted or misclassified numerous cases in which armed civilians stopped attacks,” Lott wrote.
The FBI defines an active shooter as an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Its reporting generally excludes shootings primarily associated with other criminal activity, including robberies and certain gang-related disputes.
The designation differs from the broader category of mass shootings because an incident may qualify even when only one person is targeted or no one is killed.
Lott contends that inconsistencies in applying the definition have caused federal researchers to overlook cases involving armed civilian intervention.
His organization’s expanded database includes incidents that CPRC researchers believe meet the relevant criteria but were absent from federal reports.
The center also identified 35 additional cases in which armed civilians stopped attackers before they could fire a shot. Those incidents were excluded from the calculation of 36.6% because no shots were fired.
According to the analysis, the proportion of active shooter incidents stopped by armed civilians increased to 42.5% during the most recent five-year period.
The figures were higher when researchers excluded locations where law-abiding civilians were generally prohibited from carrying firearms.
For the past five years, CPRC estimated that armed citizens stopped 56.3% of active shooter incidents occurring in places where civilian firearm possession was legally permitted.
Lott argued that restrictions on carrying firearms influence whether armed civilians are present and able to respond during an attack.
However, those findings do not establish that allowing firearms in additional locations would necessarily produce the same intervention rates. Differences in the types of incidents, settings and reporting practices can affect such comparisons.
The disagreement between CPRC and federal researchers extends beyond the overall number of cases.
Lott cited a 2019 shooting at a dental office in Colonial Heights, Tennessee, where a man fatally shot his wife at her workplace before being confronted by an armed civilian.
Researchers at the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center, which contributes to the FBI’s active shooter reporting, questioned whether the case qualified because the attacker had targeted his wife during a domestic dispute.
Lott argued that the shooting endangered other people at the location and should have been included.
He also cited a 2014 shooting at a Portland, Oregon, strip club, where an armed civilian intervened after a gunman reportedly returned following an earlier confrontation.
The ALERRT Center considered the incident potentially connected to retaliatory violence, raising questions about whether it belonged in the active shooter dataset.
Lott maintained that federal researchers included other incidents involving domestic disputes and retaliatory attacks when armed civilians did not stop the shooters.
He argued that applying different standards to otherwise comparable incidents could distort the statistics.
The debate previously attracted attention from Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, who questioned the FBI and ALERRT about disputed cases in 2023.
According to Lott, ALERRT challenged the inclusion of two incidents identified by CPRC, while the FBI did not provide a substantive response to the concerns presented at that time.
In a subsequent exchange with journalist John Stossel, the FBI acknowledged that its active shooter reports were not intended to capture every qualifying event but to provide a baseline understanding of incidents.
That distinction is important because the competing datasets are not identical. CPRC’s broader case selection changes both the number of incidents examined and the number credited to armed civilian intervention.
The center’s results therefore represent an alternative research estimate rather than an official revision of FBI statistics.
The FBI’s 2025 Active Shooter Incidents in the United States report, released July 30, identified 34 incidents nationwide during the year, a 42% increase from 24 in 2024.
The bureau said active shooter incidents occurred in 21 states and Washington, D.C., affecting commercial locations, government facilities, educational institutions, houses of worship and open spaces.
Federal officials emphasized the importance of prevention, rapid emergency response and cooperation among law enforcement agencies and civilians.
The report also acknowledged the role of armed and unarmed individuals who intervene during attacks.
Lott’s latest analysis does not dispute that police officers frequently stop active shooters. Instead, it questions whether the federal reports accurately reflect the role of armed civilians in bringing incidents to an end.
The CPRC has published supporting research and individual case information, allowing readers and researchers to examine incidents included in its database.
The organization’s January 2026 research also compared outcomes in incidents involving police intervention with those stopped by civilians carrying firearms.
The researchers reported differences in casualties and risks to those intervening, although such comparisons can be influenced by circumstances including response time, the severity of attacks and whether armed civilians were already present when violence began.
Lott maintains that the growing number of documented defensive interventions warrants greater recognition in government reporting.
The central disagreement remains how active shooter incidents should be classified and whether federal data consistently identify cases in which armed citizens prevented further violence.
While the FBI’s reports attribute 3.9% of incidents to successful armed civilian intervention, the CPRC’s expanded analysis places that figure at 36.6%.
The nearly tenfold difference underscores how case selection, reporting definitions and the treatment of disputed incidents can substantially affect conclusions about civilian firearm use during public shootings.
Original article
Comments