From the article:
Statistically, it's rare for the average person who is armed to stop an incident with an active shooter, said Daniel Webster, professor of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
This statement is almost always in any news story about CCW and active shootings, and almost always without context. It's technically true, but very misleading. First off, it's statistically rare for the average person to be in a active shooter incident period. In many of the active shooting incidents, they are either located in a criminal protection zone
(the real name for a so called gun free zone) , or there is no one in the immediate area that is carrying anyway.
The correct statistic should be, of the active shootings where a concealed carrier was present, what is the success rate in stopping the active shooter versus the active shooting situations where no concealed carriers were present? I have not seen any actual statistics on this yet, only reporting of various stories in the news, including news from Israel, where concealed carriers have stopped not only active shooters but suicide bombers as well. Based on those stories I've seen, my rough guess would be
no cc at all = slim to no chance versus
at least one CCW = a small to even chance, depending on the circumstances
2 or more CC = odds increase
And what about the comment you see sometimes from the anti gunners, about how CHL holders will accidentally shoot innocent people in a mass shooting while trying to take out the killer? So far, that's never happened that I'm aware of. I've asked anti gunners to provide examples of this ever happening, but haven't seen or heard of any yet.
Even though that is of course a possibility, as for me, I'd rather take the remote chance of getting wounded accidentally by a CHL holder than be part of a dozen people being killed intentionally by a murderer.