Debunking the favoritist cases used to promote arming civilians.

Bottom line, armed civilians don't stop mass shooters.

Beware of University of Chicago economists wielding regression analyses.

My new favorite:

One possible problem with the particular video above is that it claims to show how to stop a massacre, then it goes on to show a foiled robbery. It doesn't sound like there would have been a massacre at all or, as far as we know, any injuries at all if it was indeed an attempted robbery. Weren't these perps charged with armed robbery and not multiple attempted murders, as they would have been if attempting a massacre?

Robbers use guns to threaten violence in order to get what they really want, usually money or other valuables. By definition they have no need to actually fire their guns, let alone murder anyone in cold blood, unless something doesn't go according to plan. One way that it doesn't is when yazoo vigilantes like this heat-packing grandpa steps in with his 4 hour class of expertise and indeed foils the robbery, but it's a tossup as to whether the perps are nabbed without violence, as it did here, or it turns deadly for the innocent who are present.

Are there Youtube videos showing botched robberies that turn deadly for innocents and is the ratio of good-to-bad outcome videos accurate to real statistics?

Five rounds and he didn't bring down either perp from less than twenty feet?

I'm confused. How is a gun battle between incompetants a deterent to real bad guys?