See, they think that the good guy with a gun is a myth, that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and John Stossel--a one-time left-leaning journalist who figured the anti-gunners were right for years before he woke up--takes a look at things.

He starts with the claim.

Do you carry a gun?

Bad idea, says Hollywood. Civilians with guns are fools. You are more likely to hurt yourself than the bad guy.

“Leave it to a good guy with a gun to really screw things up,” says a cop on ABC’s “The Rookie.”

Liberal politicians agree.

“A good guy with a gun will stop bad guys with a gun?! It doesn’t hold up,” smiles New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.

“An adolescent rescue fantasy,” adds an “expert” on CBS.

Now, I'm sure the folks who weren't killed at the Greenwood Park Mall shooting might take issue with that statement. After all, a good guy with a gun sure as hell stopped that shooting.

However, Stossel sat down with John Lott. We know where Lott stands on the gun issue. They talked about a number of other cases.

“A couple million times a year, people use guns defensively,” he says in my new video. “When a civilian tries to stop one of these instances, they’re overwhelmingly successful.”

But FBI reports say self-defense with guns is rare.

“They’re simply missing a huge number of cases,” says Lott. He’s posted a list of cases the FBI ignored, where civilians stopped shooters.

The FBI lists the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Forty-nine people were killed.

“One week afterwards,” says Lott, “there was a similar attack at a nightclub in South Carolina.”

But there, a civilian shot the attacker.

“Still had 125 rounds of ammunition on him when he was stopped!” says Lott.

Somehow, the FBI missed that case, along with so many others.

When 17 people were killed at Parkland, Florida, that got lots of news coverage.

Few people know that “just a few months later in Titusville, Florida, (at) an elementary school,” says Lott, “a man came up, started firing his gun. Fortunately, a hot dog vendor (with a) concealed handgun was able to wound the attacker and stop him before he was able to kill.”

“Stepped in and saved a lot of people’s lives,” said a local police officer.

But the FBI somehow missed that, too …

Now, Lott says that when he's spoken with FBI personnel, especially during his stint with the Department of Justice, they announced they were Democrats. In other words, they were anti-gunners who likely didn't want to include information harmful to the gun control cause.

Stossel asked the FBI what was up. Their response? They replied claiming their data was “not intended to explore all facets of active shooter incidents.”

And yet, how often is that data cited as evidence that mass murderers are never stopped by good guys with guns? Stossel notes that it's a shame no one told these folks that it wasn't meant to "explore all facets" of active shooter cases, which I agree. Especially because FBI data is generally considered by many to be authoritative.

Yet as Lott notes, many of those folks are Democrats, the party that favors gun control by a massive margin over their opponents. The idea that their ideology infects their findings is probably the most credible claim you can make under the circumstances.

So when Hollywood starts pushing the narrative that good guys with guns really make things worse, it's coming not from a place of trying to reflect reality through fiction, but from trying to advance a narrative where every bit of data supporting it is as biased as anything.

Or are they thinking "good guy with a gun" means Alec Baldwin, who only got off with killing an innocent woman because of prosecutorial misconduct?

Inquiring minds want to know.