A recent Wall Street Journal article pointed to several self-defense shootings where a bystander was injured.
The situations were tragic, and made for a scary headline – but they deserve added context.
The article, titled “The Innocent Bystanders Caught in Deadly Crossfire of Self-Defense Shootings,” highlighted several cases from around the country, leaving readers with the impression that gun carriers pose a growing public risk.
Across the United States, millions of Americans lawfully carry firearms.
The overwhelming majority never fire a shot in public, let alone harm an innocent bystander.
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center’s 2025 national permit report, there are about 20.9 million active concealed-carry permit holders nationwide, even after recent declines driven largely by states adopting permitless carry laws.
That perspective matters when weighing fear against facts.
Lawful carry in Nevada is common and regulated
Nevada requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun. We are not a permitless concealed-carry state.
Permits are issued through county sheriffs’ offices and require background checks and training.
According to Nevada Department of Public Safety data compiled in the CPRC report, Nevada had approximately 173,000 active concealed-carry permits as of July 2025, representing about 6.7% of the adult population.
Clark County accounts for the majority of those permits, followed by Washoe County.
That scale matters when evaluating risk.
If lawful concealed carry regularly resulted in bystanders being shot, Nevada should offer plenty of examples.
Yet clear, well-documented cases involving permitted carriers accidentally shooting bystanders during lawful self-defense remain extremely rare.
National cases are often broader than “concealed carry”
The Wall Street Journal article cites several tragic incidents, but they span very different circumstances.
One involved a person who held a valid gun permit. Another resulted in a weapons violation charge, suggesting the firearm possession or carry itself was not fully lawful. One did not specify whether the shooter was legally carrying at all.
They are real tragedies. But they aren’t a single, uniform category.
That distinction matters when stories about “self-defense shootings” are used to shape public perception of lawful gun owners.
How rare are bystander shootings by lawful carriers?
The CPRC report documents that concealed-carry permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding, with revocation or conviction rates that are fractions of one percent across states.
In Florida and Texas, for example, permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at roughly one-twelfth the rate of police officers, according to state records summarized in the report.
That doesn’t mean accidents never happen, but statistically, permit holders represent one of the most law-abiding segments of the population.
Police are often forced to act in chaotic, dangerous situations, so this isn’t to say police officers are any less responsible than a civilian with a permit.
It is simply a reminder that gunfire in emergencies is inherently risky, regardless of who pulls the trigger.
What the FBI’s active-shooter data shows
Using the FBI’s definition of an “active shooter,” CPRC researchers also examined cases where civilians and police intervened to stop mass-casualty attacks.
According to figures summarized in a 2025 Supreme Court amicus brief referenced by CPRC, armed civilians stopped 199 active-shooter incidents between 2014 and 2024, compared to 167 stopped by police.
In those civilian interventions, the brief reports one accidental bystander shooting and no cases where armed civilians interfered with police responses.
You can debate the policy implications of that data, but the figures themselves are part of the public record and cited by researchers using FBI classifications.
A better way to talk about self-defense
Every innocent life lost is a tragedy.
Families deserve compassion, and courts should carefully examine whether someone acted recklessly or negligently.
But public policy should be built on patterns and evidence, not isolated anecdotes blended together under vague labels.
In Nevada, where lawful carry is common, regulated, and long-standing, the available data does not support the idea that permitted gun owners pose a widespread danger to the public.
If anything, the evidence shows they are overwhelmingly careful, restrained, and law-abiding.
That is a reality worth keeping in mind the next time a national headline paints all self-defense shootings with the same brush.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
