Wall Street Journal reporter Mark Maremont continues his attacks on people carrying concealed handguns (this titled “The Innocent Bystanders Caught in Deadly Crossfire of Self-Defense Shootings“). Previously we tried writing letters to the WSJ pointing out legal errors and data problems with an earlier piece he had. Now Maremont has another piece claiming there are four examples from 2022 to now of people legally carry a concealed handgun who accidentally shot a bystander when they fired their guns in self defense.
Not only does he fail to provide any perspective for this with 1.67 million Americans using guns defensively each year or that 21 million Americans have a concealed handgun permit, but only two of the four examples actually fit the storyline Maremont is pushing (a case in Massachusetts and another in Michigan). The Ohio case involved an employee with a gun at work so there is no issue of concealed carry. The other case from California doesn’t appear to involve someone with a concealed handgun permit. While Maremont’s article discusses Constitutional Carry, none of the four cases he discusses involve Constitutional Carry.
To examine this issue more closely, we have used ChatGPT and Grok to help put together a list of cases over the last decade where concealed carry permit holders accidentally shot an innocent bystander. … One of these cases was a shot by a security guard, so there is a good argument that should be excluded.
So over the decade from 2016 to 2025, including the security guard, there are five bystanders shot, with two killed and three wounded. Excluding the security guard, there were four people shot, with two killed and two wounded.
We did a similar comparison to police over the same years from 2016 to 2025, and we [found] twenty cases where a total of 28 bystanders were accidentally shot, with seven killed and 21 wounded…. In one case, an officer wounded six people. In another case, three officers wounded three people. But there are a number of news stories that don’t identify whether the bystander was shot by the criminal or the police.
So the police accidentally wounded 5.6 times as many bystanders as the civilians, including a security guard wounded, in a decade, and 3 times the number killed, and seven times numbers wounded. Without the security guard, seven times more were shot, 3 times killed, and 21 times more wounded. Without the security guard, bystanders are seven times more likely to be shot by police than civilians.
Anything can be “what if” out of existence. Wall Street Journal reporter Mark Maremont is nothing more than a what if er. He and his democrat pals show more caring and compassion for what might happen, (i.e., what if) than they do for victims when bad things happen. What if M Maremont, et al., were to be truly concerned about holding criminals accountable? What if this comment gives M Maremont the red ass?
Considering how common defensive gun uses are, that few bystanders being shot is admirable. Self-defense can be messy sometimes and defenders have to take situations as they come. You’re not always going to get a perfect backstop.
The media are anti-civil rights. They always have been. The police in general support the 2A far more than the media does.
Don’t trust the police or the press. And record everything.