An FBI study of 160 active-shooting incidents from 2000 to 2013 found that only one was stopped by an individual with a valid firearms permit. In contrast, 21 incidents were stopped by unarmed citizens.5
If shooters target gun free zones, we should
expect that any resistance will be by unarmed
people.
I wouldn't use this to claim that being unarmed
is better than being armed in a gun fight.
Armed citizens can worsen the outcome of a mass shooting. During the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, an armed bystander misidentified the perpetrator and almost shot the wrong person.6
In one incident, they "almost"....
That doesn't address the general case.
Expansive concealed carry permitting laws are linked to an increase in violent crime. A 2017 study by researchers at Stanford University found that, 10 years after enacting these laws, states experienced a 13 percent to 15 percent rise in violent crimes.7
You say "linked to" but don't show that it's causative.
Moreover, criminals don't need a concealed carry
license in order to commit a crime with a gun.
Using a gun for defense during a robbery has no significant benefits. A 2015 analysis by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of
Public Health of the National Crime
Victimization Survey found that the likelihood of sustaining an injury during a robbery was nearly identical between people who attempted to defend themselves with a gun and those who took no defensive action.8
Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth
A gun is more likely to be stolen than used to stop a crime. According to a CAP analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey, guns are nearly twice as likely to be stolen than to be used for self-defense.9
This is why I favor legally requiring secure storage of guns.
Oddly, very few anti-gun types ever express agreement
on this. Could it be that any measure that both preserves
gun rights & reduces gun crimes runs counter to their
agenda to eliminate gun rights?