9 Things Wrong With BuzzFeed’s Article About 9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped by Someone With a Personally…

A blog about murder, theft, and other wickedness.
Sept. 18 2013 6:58 PM

9 Things Wrong With BuzzFeed’s Article About 9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped by Someone With a Personally Owned Firearm

180795965
Aaron Alexis, the suspect in the mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

Photo by FBI via Getty Images

In the wake of the mass shooting Monday at Washington, D.C.’s Navy Yard, Ryan Broderick at BuzzFeed posted an article titled “9 Potential Mass Shootings That Were Stopped By Someone With A Personally Owned Firearm.” The piece has been wildly popular on social media, which isn’t surprising: It’s a simple, provocative piece that ostensibly validates the gun lobby’s contention that there’s an inverse relationship between private gun ownership and mass shootings. But like many simple and provocative things, the BuzzFeed story is more than a little misleading.

First of all, five of the nine “potential mass shootings” that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say “allegedly” because there’s no evidence to corroborate the guard’s claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. It’s absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.

Advertisement

So that leaves two incidents out of the nine originally cited in the BuzzFeed story. In one of those two, a 2009 Virginia convenience store shooting was allegedly stopped when a heat-packing patron shot the gunman. BuzzFeed admits that the details surrounding this incident “are murky,” which is a nice way of saying that the story cannot be verified. BuzzFeed only cites secondary sources, none of which offer the patron’s name or other fact-checkable details about the Golden Market shooting. That might not be a problem for BuzzFeed, but it is for me. I don’t think we can count this.

And so, from the nine stories we started with, we’re left with one verifiable instance in which a private citizen with no military or law enforcement background and a personally owned firearm may have actually intervened in a mass shooting. In 1998 a Pennsylvania man named James Strand turned his shotgun on a teenager named Andrew Wurst, who had just shot several people at a middle school dance. Strand helped force Wurst to disarm, and then held him until police arrived. And yet Wurst had already fled the dance hall by the time Strand caught up with him. The damage was done. While Strand’s actions were heroic, it’s not clear that he stopped a mass shooting so much as he helped apprehend the suspect after the shooting was concluded. The same is true for at least two other incidents that BuzzFeed cites: the 1997 Pearl High School shooting, in which Army Reserve commander Joel Myrick apprehended the teen shooter after he had already left the high school, and the 2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting, in which—according to Mother Jones—two current and former law enforcement officers only intervened to stop the shooter after he had already run out of ammunition. Again: These were heroic actions. But you can't really say for sure that they "stopped" anything.

The fact is that untrained private citizens do not generally intervene in potential mass shootings. There are very few verifiable stories of gun-toting civilians inserting themselves in these sorts of situations. (And, just in case you were wondering, there is little evidence to support the contention that mass shooters deliberately target gun-free environments.) This is probably a good thing. Federal agencies encourage civilians who find themselves in "active shooter" situations to hide, or run away, or do almost anything beside fight back, because when they do intervene, they can end up dead. In 2005 a Tacoma man named Brendan McKown drew his own gun on a man who was shooting up a shopping mall; McKown was shot and went into a coma. Also in 2005 a man named Mark Wilson was shot and killed when he tried to intervene in a courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas.

As Slate’s Forrest Wickman wrote last year, academic researchers disagree about whether an increased number of private gun owners might help deter mass shootings. One 1999 study found that permissive concealed-carry laws “reduce both the number of [multiple victim] shootings as well as their severity”; but a 2009 literature review found that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that those sorts of concealed-carry laws actually worked “as a public health intervention to reduce violent crime.” I don’t feel qualified to argue the point one way or another. I do, however, feel qualified to say that the BuzzFeed article proves nothing other than the ease with which distortions and oversimplifications can spread via online media when guns are the topic at hand.

Justin Peters is a writer for Slate. He is working on a book about Aaron Swartz, copyright, and the rise of “free culture.” Email him at justintrevett@fastmail.fm.

TODAY IN SLATE

Foreigners

More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

What Charles Barkley Gets Wrong About Corporal Punishment and Black Culture

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

Three Talented Actresses in Three Terrible New Shows

Why Do Some People See the Virgin Mary in Grilled Cheese?

The science that explains the human need to find meaning in coincidences.

Jurisprudence

Happy Constitution Day!

Too bad it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.

Is It Worth Paying Full Price for the iPhone 6 to Keep Your Unlimited Data Plan? We Crunch the Numbers.

What to Do if You Literally Get a Bug in Your Ear

  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 16 2014 7:03 PM Kansas Secretary of State Loses Battle to Protect Senator From Tough Race
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 16 2014 4:16 PM The iPhone 6 Marks a Fresh Chance for Wireless Carriers to Kill Your Unlimited Data
  Life
The Eye
Sept. 16 2014 12:20 PM These Outdoor Cat Shelters Have More Style Than the Average Home
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 8:43 PM This 17-Minute Tribute to David Fincher Is the Perfect Preparation for Gone Girl
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 6:40 PM This iPhone 6 Feature Will Change Weather Forecasting
  Health & Science
Medical Examiner
Sept. 16 2014 11:46 PM The Scariest Campfire Story More horrifying than bears, snakes, or hook-handed killers.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.