For many years (since I was a teen, at least) the NRA's publication, The American Rifleman, has published the "Armed Citizen" column monthly.
This consisted of articles culled from local newspapers by subscribers and sent in. Each article had the citations attached. They all concerned the use of weapons by citizens to protect themselves, stop criminals, or dissuade criminals from their activities.
The "Rifleman" would publish 20 or so per month.
Mind, this was only situations reported to local papers and sent in by Rifleman subscribers, very likely the incidence was actually much higher.
This has since, as you might imagine, moved online and here is but one site:
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/
This is constantly updated and there is a considerable archive.
So, it's fairly obvious that "good guys with guns" do indeed succeed in protecting themselves or others or in stopping criminal activity, and on a fairly ongoing basis.
Now, whether these incidents are frequent enough to have an impact on crime rates on even a local level, that's unlikely.
These are isolated incidents and in the overall scheme of things, quite limited.
Still, it happens.
I don't think that it's particularly arguable that if you do have a "bad guy with a gun" situation, it is in fact the presence of good guys similarly armed (be that police or citizens) that puts a stop to the activity.
What else is going to? The so-called "mass shooter" usually continues his activities until the police arrive and then they suicide.
That so few of such individuals have been engaged by citizens is primarily a testimony to the fact that the actual percentage of citizens who are doing regular CCW is very small.
Back when Missouri was considering allowing CCW, the local papers did a very extensive research article which indicated two things. First (as this notes) the enactment of CCW in states had very little if any effect on crime rates.
But on the other hand, it also did not result in the "streets running with blood" scenarios put forth by the "against" folks.
And that's pretty much been the case here. We have a LOT of shootings here in St. Louis. Hardly a weekend goes by without a dozen or so people getting shot. These are all gang/drug related and almost all confined to a very small area of the city.
These are people to whom violence and turf wars and revenge killings are a way of life and they are indiscriminate and vicious.
Legislation will not be effective in controlling this violence, only a sea-change in the social conditions that spawn it.
It's my personal belief that those who are concerned with their own safety, and who are willing to invest the time, training, and mental training to accept the attendant responsibility, they should be able to.
Missouri just made it the case that if you can legally purchase a handgun, you can carry it. No training or permit required.
IMO.... A mistake. We'll see.
