That’s nearly ten times the percentage reflected in federal statistics.
And just as the controversy over those numbers intensifies, a father in Oregon has provided a powerful reminder of what an armed civilian can accomplish when lives are on the line.
John Lott Challenges a Decade of FBI Statistics
The dispute centers on a fundamental question: How frequently do ordinary Americans stop mass violence before police arrive?
For years, the FBI’s annual active-shooter reports have been widely cited by journalists, lawmakers, and gun-control advocates.
But Lott argues those reports leave out numerous incidents in which legally armed citizens successfully confronted attackers.
His organization’s latest analysis identified 615 active-shooter incidents from 2014 through 2025.
Of those incidents, CPRC researchers concluded that armed civilians stopped 225, representing approximately 36.6 percent.
By comparison, the federal figures cited in coverage of Lott’s research identified 418 incidents and credited armed civilians with stopping just 16.
That produces a striking difference of 209 civilian interventions.
The discrepancy raises serious questions about how federal authorities classify shootings and whether their reporting provides a complete picture of defensive gun use.
However, the difference does not establish that the FBI deliberately concealed incidents. The competing totals also reflect disagreements over which events qualify as active-shooter incidents.
Lott maintains that the federal methodology substantially understates the role of armed citizens.
Another 35 Attacks Never Made It Into the Count
The findings become even more significant when examining incidents that never developed into active shootings.
According to CPRC, researchers excluded 35 additional cases in which armed citizens stopped potential attackers before they fired a shot.
Those incidents were not included in the organization’s 225 successful interventions.
Lott says his concerns about federal reporting began while he was working at the Justice Department during President Donald Trump’s first administration.
Part of his responsibilities involved reviewing the FBI’s active-shooter reports.
During that work, he says he discovered incidents that federal records either omitted or classified differently.
His organization subsequently assembled its own database using police documentation, judicial records, and local news reports.
The resulting figures challenge a longstanding assumption in America’s gun-control debate: that armed civilians almost never play a meaningful role in stopping public shootings.
The disagreement deserves careful independent scrutiny, particularly because both datasets influence public understanding of gun violence and the effectiveness of armed intervention.
But the argument is no longer limited to spreadsheets and competing research methods.
A horrifying attack in Oregon has brought the issue into national focus.
Oregon Father Confronts Gunman Inside Elementary School
On October 15, 2026, terror struck Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon.
A 16-year-old former student armed with a shotgun forced his way into the building and opened fire.
Three children and a teacher were killed.
Two additional victims suffered serious injuries.
As the violence unfolded, 36-year-old carpenter Kaylub Giamanco happened to be driving nearby.
His two daughters attended the school.
After witnessing the armed teenager approaching the property and hearing gunfire, Giamanco retrieved a legally owned handgun from his vehicle.
He then made a decision that would change his life forever.
Rather than remain outside, he entered the building to confront the attacker.
Inside a classroom, a teacher was already fighting desperately to disarm the teenager.
Giamanco fired his handgun, fatally wounding the shooter and bringing the attack to an end.
Bend Police Chief Mike Krantz praised the actions of both the teacher and Giamanco, saying their intervention likely prevented additional deaths.
The extraordinary account was confirmed through police briefings and subsequent reporting.
Trump Praises the Armed Father’s Courage
President Trump publicly recognized Giamanco’s actions following the shooting.
“Thank goodness for a man that had a gun and knew how to use it,” Trump said.
He also described Giamanco as a “great hero” who “took care of business.”
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek also acknowledged Giamanco’s bravery, according to local reporting.
But the father himself has struggled with the emotional consequences of that afternoon.
Speaking to Oregon Public Broadcasting, Giamanco described the terrifying moments before he entered the school.
He had been preparing to return home for lunch when he encountered the unfolding attack.
Instead, he found himself confronting an armed teenager inside his daughters’ elementary school.
In the aftermath, Giamanco expressed anguish over the victims he could not save.
His account illustrates both the potential lifesaving impact of civilian intervention and the extraordinary personal burden carried by those forced into such situations.
A School Tragedy Reignites the Second Amendment Debate
The Oregon shooting has also renewed questions about the limits of gun restrictions and school security.
Oregon maintains several firearm regulations, including background-check requirements and restrictions governing certain weapons and transfers.
Nevertheless, the teenage attacker managed to obtain a shotgun and enter an elementary school.
Authorities have continued investigating the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the shooter’s background.
For Second Amendment supporters, the tragedy illustrates an argument they have made for decades.
When an attack begins, the first person capable of stopping it may not be a police officer.
Sometimes, that person is an ordinary citizen who happens to be nearby.
Giamanco’s intervention offers a documented example of that possibility.
At the same time, a single incident cannot establish how often armed civilians successfully intervene nationwide or settle the broader debate over firearm policy.
Those questions require accurate and consistently defined statistics.
That is precisely where Lott’s research is generating controversy.
The FBI Faces Questions It Should Answer
The difference between the FBI’s figures and CPRC’s findings is substantial.
One dataset portrays armed civilian intervention as exceptionally uncommon.
The other suggests it occurs in more than one-third of the active-shooter incidents identified by its researchers.
Both cannot be treated as interchangeable measurements without examining how they were compiled.
For Americans trying to evaluate gun laws, public safety, and the effectiveness of defensive firearm ownership, that distinction matters.
Federal agencies should be prepared to explain why particular incidents are excluded, how civilian interventions are classified, and whether their reporting methods need improvement.
Lott’s research does not, by itself, prove intentional wrongdoing.
But a discrepancy this large warrants a transparent examination rather than dismissal.
And while Washington debates definitions and statistics, families in Bend are confronting the devastating reality of a school shooting that claimed four innocent lives.
One armed father and one courageous teacher helped ensure the tragedy did not become even worse.
Their actions deserve recognition.
