The federal government no longer enacts the will of the people. It enacts the will of some people, most of whom seem to be unelected bureaucrats who side with an anti-gun agenda. They do not care about our rights. They simply want to see guns restricted, most likely because an armed populace isn't one that can be run roughshod over.

But good guys with guns cause them a problem. How can you paint the use of guns as an unmitigated evil if good people use them to stop bad people?

What's more, the federal government has numbers that back up the claim that good guys with guns save lives. However, as John Lott notes over at The Federalist, the feds are hiding them from us.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under the Biden Administration has sought to suppress data proving that armed citizens help prevent crime by removing its estimates of defensive gun uses from its website. For almost a decade, the CDC referenced a 2013 National Academies of Sciences report noting that people used guns to stop crime anywhere from about 64,000 to 3 million times a year.

This decision was taken after gun control activist Mark Bryant, founder of the Gun Violence Archive, lobbied the CDC to remove “misinformation” regarding defensive gun use estimates because of they are cited by “gun rights folks” to stop gun control legislation. Soon after, the CDC took down these estimates and now lists no numbers.

This is probably the most profound case of bias I've ever seen. The CDC has the numbers and had enough faith in them to post them, then an anti-gun activist took issue with them and said they prevented gun control from passing, so the CDC took them down.

And they wonder how the Dickey Amendment came into being in the first place.

They knew the truth and suppressed it simply because activists saw the truth as a barrier and asked them to take it down. Would they have done the same with COVID-19 numbers? Would they do the same with drunk driving deaths or childhood drownings?

Of course not. Nor should they. If they believe in the numbers enough to post them, they should have stuck to their guns on this.

But the issue isn't just the CDC. 

Oh no, the FBI has to have its own problems.

The FBI has also shown itself to be susceptible to political pressure. The FBI defines an active shooter attack as occurring when an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. This measure includes everything from just one person shot at, even if the target isn’t hit, to a mass public shooting. It doesn’t include, however, shootings involving other crimes, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf.

To compile its list, the FBI hired researchers at Texas State University. Police departments don’t record these cases, so the researchers relied on Google searches to find news stories about these incidents. As such, the FBI’s evidence relies on a dataset that is actively hostile to the truth.

During 2020 and the beginning of 2021, I worked as the senior advisor for research and statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice. My job included evaluating the FBI’s active shooting reports. During my time with the DOJ, I discovered that the FBI either missed or misidentified many cases of civilians using guns to stop attacks. For instance, the FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 350 active shooter cases that it identified in the ten years from 2014 to 2023.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I run, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list. As such, the CPRC numbers tell a much different story: Out of 515 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2023, armed citizens stopped 180, saving countless innocent lives. Our numbers even excluded 27 cases where a law-abiding citizen with a gun stopped an attacker before he could fire a shot.

Overall, the CPRC estimates that law-abiding citizens with guns have stopped over 35 percent of active shootings over the last decade and 39.6 percent in the last five years. This figure is eight times higher than the four percent estimate made by the FBI.

Now, 35 percent isn't a massive number, but we need to remember that a lot of active shootings are happening in places where there are issues with law-abiding citizens being armed.

Potential mass murderers, for example, tend to favor gun-free zones for their attacks, such as schools like Apalachee High School in Winder. They also like malls, movie theaters, and other places where a large number of people are in one place and are generally disarmed by force of law. That means these incidents are less likely to be met with armed resistance not because good guys with guns don't stop attacks but because the law makes sure there aren't any good guys with guns.

Then we have the fact that a lot of other active shooter incidents happen in inner cities. These are often places where gun ownership is discouraged and, in the case of anti-gun states, where the government is outright hostile to the idea of citizens with guns. Before recently, getting a permit might have been impossible, thus making it far less likely a good guy with a gun could be anywhere near the scene of such a shooting.

And this is interesting because Lott wrote this well before the events in Winder.

In that case, school resource officers--good guys with guns, even if it was their job--reacted to the attack and ended the threat with an armed response. They didn't have to kill the shooter, either. People like that tend to be cowards. Armed resistance scares them and so they surrender, run away, or just about anything else, even if the good guy doesn't kill them.

For all the talk about gun control in the wake of Winder, I think the more important discussion is putting guns in school staff members' hands.

Guns save lives, after all.