Are we cheating ourselves statistically?

[output]

I have partaken in a few debates regarding statistics as they related to "shoots fired" in altercations when a firearm was present. These debates often include the argument that is it okay to carry reduced capacity firearms. There is even a rule of 3's I have heard mentioned in more than one training class... It goes something like this: The average gun fight lasts 3 seconds, is within 3 feet, and is over with under 3 shots fired.

I have often thought about this. My question is what about all the attacks, robberies, and random acts of violence where there was no firearm present? Just a person(s) being beaten to death by one or multiple assailants? How do we quantify this number and include it within the proper context. We are leaving out a major portion of statistical data based solely on a firearm not being present.

Here is the kicker...

The "average" encounter when a firearm is products in defense is actually a fairly minute number, is it not? Not very many people are walking around carrying a firearm legally, and even less of those people ever have to use it.

How many people are attacked and beaten in an average day in the US? We know that criminals normally attack with numbers on their side. Meaning more than one attacker per victim. So, how it safe to assume we are covered by the "rule of 3's."

Am I thinking about this the wrong way?

 

[russc2542]

Nope, you're absolutely right: the rule of 3s might be a talking point but is NOT a viable basis for equipment or legislation. if the average is that, that means that half of all incidents take more, how much more vs how often is the next talking point. I mean that averages are influenced as much by frequency as distance from the mean. 5 incidents where 4 shots were fired are just as influential as 1 incident where 8 shots are fired (1 extra bullet * 5 occurrences vs 1 occurrence * 5 extra bullets. To make a judgement based on the statistics, you need to see the whole curve: how many rounds were fired before resolution of every incident and decide how many sigmas up the graph you want to be covered for.

More tangibly: what are the consequences of error in the wrong direction (IE too much/not enough ammo): too much ammo? So what? too little? oh s***!

 

[ViperJock]

To me, the small capacity gun argument is a logical fail. On one hand you carry a gun just in case an extremely remote event occurs to you. On the other hand you play the averages with shots fired. Well, which is it? Why even bother carrying in the first place if you are playing the law of averages? Why prepare for a situation that will likely never occur, but if it does, it's life threatening and you are only moderately ready?

 

[Cameramonkey]

This thread has a LOT of good info.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...96940-random-violence-stats-ive-compiled.html

And unless the attackers are determined, When the first attacker starts to bleed, the rest lose interest quickly. So a random crime of opportunity in theory is diffused quickly once the first shot is fired (or even the gun is presented) as the extra goons there for support decide they want none of what you are serving and beat feet so they dont get extra holes instead of your cash and valuables.

 

[rhino]

Risk assessment includes not only the likelihood of various events occurring, but also the weight of the consequences if those events occur.

Also keep in mind that statistics apply to populations or large samples from a population. They do not apply to individuals. Once you are involved in your own event, it's prudent to be as prepared as possible.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...iolence-stats-ive-compiled-2.html#post6447612

You can see real life results there. Note that this is all random crime, no domestics, no dope related home invasions, etc.

There's a lot of issues with statistics. One, very few people have the opportunity to sort out total rounds fired vs rounds fired until resolution. A lot of instances no one can. The mind takes awhile to decide to quit shooting just like it takes awhile to decide to shoot, suspects are down but behind cover so the victim keeps firing, that sort of thing. If it's on camera, we can often determine which shot actually resolved it and which were extra. Two, statistics are overly broad. If you are not a selling dope or in a gang, the statistics related to dope/gang related shootings are irrelevant to you...yet they are lumped in on those "averages". If you don't have a crazy ex-boyfriend who has decided if he can't have you, no one can, those statistics don't matter to you...yet they are lumped in with "averages", etc.

For truly random crime, 3x3x3 is still a good measure. Most, as in about 90%, were won or lost with either zero or one shot fired.

Now, as far as speculating on beating to death by a group of strangers...it's incredibly rare. Total murders by unarmed suspects this year is something like 2 out of 86, and that's pretty common. What you'll find is that the victims of unarmed murder are nearly always smaller children, and always by family members. Adults beaten to death by strangers is such a tiny part of homicides as to not have any statistical impact on the discussion here. Simply for discussion, and based on other incidents with multiple attackers, people to run out of time before they run out of ammo. You put the first bad guy down and the rest flee, or you are overwhelmed/shot/stabbed by the group before you can effectively defend yourself against all of them. You can't control if they flee. To prevail against dedicated multiple attackers, you need to be very well trained, very lucky, and/or have set yourself up for success by obtaining cover or a choke point (ie doorway) prior to engagement.

I continue to recommend you carry what you shoot best, quantified with a target and timer. Capacity remains a secondary consideration. If you have a specific credible threat (the crazy ex-boyfriend, you are receiving threats because you witnessed a crime, etc.) then capacity and longer distance ability begins to matter more and more.

Finally, yes, there's rarely a situation where you have too much ammo. However, if I had the choice between a spare magazine or a tourniquet, I'd carry the tourniquet. Ideally (and I do), carry both. We also must realize that many people face the reality of non-permissive environments at work or in their daily routine and their choice is a binary one of a smaller more concealable firearm or no firearm at all. Knowing the facts and having the confidence in your equipment is helpful to those people, and hopefully encourages them to carry something, if a single stack 9mm or a j-frame is all they can carry that's fine.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Now, as far as speculating on beating to death by a group of strangers...it's incredibly rare. Total murders by unarmed suspects this year is something like 2 out of 86, and that's pretty common. What you'll find is that the victims of unarmed murder are nearly always smaller children, and always by family members. Adults beaten to death by strangers is such a tiny part of homicides as to not have any statistical impact on the discussion here. Simply for discussion, and based on other incidents with multiple attackers, people to run out of time before they run out of ammo. You put the first bad guy down and the rest flee, or you are overwhelmed/shot/stabbed by the group before you can effectively defend yourself against all of them. You can't control if they flee. To prevail against dedicated multiple attackers, you need to be very well trained, very lucky, and/or have set yourself up for success by obtaining cover or a choke point (ie doorway) prior to engagement.

With more and more BLM-type riots, especially like what happened in Milwaukee last week, we unfortunately may get some statistics on that angle.

 

[MohawkSlim]

You can't include those who don't carry with those who do. You've already decided to carry so the only relevant statistics are those in the carry group.

When your opponents tell you it's not necessary to carry or you need to carry 52 rounds (in three magazines) they're using data that supports their position because they're correct when they use that data. (Statistics are fun!) You have a less than 0% chance of being killed and/or shooting someone whether you carry or not. Keep that in mind when debating. As for your position of carrying a smaller, less capacity gun, you're also right and the data supports it.

In short, everyone's right and there's data to prove it.

Where we draw differences in the debate is what's important to us. Would we rather not carry a gun and be "right" that we never get attacked? Would we rather carry 52 rounds (in three magazines) and be "right" that sometimes mags malf or there are more than one attacker? Would we rather be "right" that on the 0% chance we actually did need a gun we didn't even need to shoot it?

We have to look at what we're likely to encounter and plan for the best outcome of that particular situation. Planning for the 0% chance of "what if" will never be statistically supported since it happens so infrequently. But.... I'm still going to do it.

 

[russc2542]

In short, everyone's right and there's data to prove it.

Oh the joys of statistics.

 

[Excalibur]

As Han Solo said "Never tell me the odds"

 

[output]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Risk assessment includes not only the likelihood of various events occurring, but also the weight of the consequences if those events occur.

Also keep in mind that statistics apply to populations or large samples from a population. They do not apply to individuals. Once you are involved in your own event, it's prudent to be as prepared as possible.

This is partly my point. The sample size combined with lack of data are what bothers me the most about the rule of 3's. The family that lives in a very low crime area that is randomly targeted and becomes the victims of a heinous crime. Or the guy at the gas pump that is surrounded by multiple attackers that do not run away but choose to fight.

Y
In short, everyone's right and there's data to prove it.

I do not believe this...and neither should you. Generally, people choose to leave data out by choice, mistakenly, and sometimes because they just don't understand or have the ability to gather all the correct data. It's like slicing a single wedge from a pie chart and basing an opinion on it without building the whole chart or by choosing to ignore it all together just to make their point or argument look stronger.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...iolence-stats-ive-compiled-2.html#post6447612

You can see real life results there. Note that this is all random crime, no domestics, no dope related home invasions, etc.

There's a lot of issues with statistics. One, very few people have the opportunity to sort out total rounds fired vs rounds fired until resolution. A lot of instances no one can. The mind takes awhile to decide to quit shooting just like it takes awhile to decide to shoot, suspects are down but behind cover so the victim keeps firing, that sort of thing. If it's on camera, we can often determine which shot actually resolved it and which were extra. Two, statistics are overly broad. If you are not a selling dope or in a gang, the statistics related to dope/gang related shootings are irrelevant to you...yet they are lumped in on those "averages". If you don't have a crazy ex-boyfriend who has decided if he can't have you, no one can, those statistics don't matter to you...yet they are lumped in with "averages", etc.

I agree there are a lot of issues with statistics. This is why I feel the rule of 3's is lacking. I don't doubt that it is a good starting point but I cannot in good faith tell myself to carry LCP or PM9 and I should be okay because the rule of 3's tells me so.

I have never been a member of a gang or sold drugs but I have lived in areas where both were very prevalent, and I can tell you first hand that they do effect almost everyone in the area. I had an uncle and neighbor attacked by two drug addicts because they needed money bad enough for a fix. The neighbor was a victim of a home invasion.
I believe there are too many outlying factors to actually quantify correctly. Age, sex, local, occupation, social status, and lifestyle all have a contribution and important role in the statistics. How we quantify it? I have no idea.

 

[eldirector]

I agree that there is a problem with the lack of good data. That leaves us to extrapolate (terribly).

That said, the data we have does seem to support the premise of 3x3x3: if something goes down, randomly, it will be quick. Be prepared to act, act quickly, and with determination. You won't get a second chance, and you won't get to reload.

Sure, there are outliers. Yes, your risks may be different. But, as a foundation to self-defense, you'd best be prepared to fend of at least a "common mugging".

 

[dudley0]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...iolence-stats-ive-compiled-2.html#post6447612

You should put on a class or something similar... Use the info that you have gathered, couple it with maybe a video or two. Maybe run thru a couple drills based on scenarios that you have worked with.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree there are a lot of issues with statistics. This is why I feel the rule of 3's is lacking. I don't doubt that it is a good starting point but I cannot in good faith tell myself to carry LCP or PM9 and I should be okay because the rule of 3's tells me so.

Then don't. My recommendation is to carry what you shoot best. Few people will find they shoot a LCP the best. However, it' a compromise gun that if it's as much as you can carry, then it's as much as you can carry. The guy who can't hit the barn while he's standing inside of it with a plastic 9mm that holds 18+1 but has a 1 second presentation to an "A" box hit with a 6 shot .357 should carry the .357. The number of times a smooth and swift presentation to a solid hit will matter is way way way more times than the number of times 6 shots didn't resolve the situation one way or the other. If you shoot the higher capacity gun better, bonus, easy decision.

Or the guy at the gas pump that is surrounded by multiple attackers that do not run away but choose to fight.

...Will probably run out of time before ammunition. At that point, a lot of training and luck are going to be required. Let me ask you, have you put as much time and thought into training to avoid those situations or to win them if they are unavoidable as you have the statistics have how much ammunition is enough?

You should put on a class or something similar... Use the info that you have gathered, couple it with maybe a video or two. Maybe run thru a couple drills based on scenarios that you have worked with.

Heh, yeah, probably should. We're running it one more time this year. I should probably make some ultra-cool Youtube video to self promote. Hold on, I need a real tight t-shirt and to edit my DD-214 real quick...

 

[dudley0]

Heh, yeah, probably should. We're running it one more time this year. I should probably make some ultra-cool Youtube video to self promote. Hold on, I need a real tight t-shirt and to edit my DD-214 real quick...

Well since you like wearing a jacket you can always say you have the tight shirt on underneath.

Every single time I see the video of the squirrel water skiing I say "Hey I know that guy!" Then I realize it isn't actually you because no firearm.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well since you like wearing a jacket you can always say you have the tight shirt on underneath.

Every single time I see the video of the squirrel water skiing I say "Hey I know that guy!" Then I realize it isn't actually you because no firearm.

...that you can see. Shoulder holster under the life vest...

 

[output]

Then don't. My recommendation is to carry what you shoot best. Few people will find they shoot a LCP the best. However, it' a compromise gun that if it's as much as you can carry, then it's as much as you can carry. The guy who can't hit the barn while he's standing inside of it with a plastic 9mm that holds 18+1 but has a 1 second presentation to an "A" box hit with a 6 shot .357 should carry the .357. The number of times a smooth and swift presentation to a solid hit will matter is way way way more times than the number of times 6 shots didn't resolve the situation one way or the other. If you shoot the higher capacity gun better, bonus, easy decision.




...Will probably run out of time before ammunition. At that point, a lot of training and luck are going to be required. Let me ask you, have you put as much time and thought into training to avoid those situations or to win them if they are unavoidable as you have the statistics have how much ammunition is enough?



Heh, yeah, probably should. We're running it one more time this year. I should probably make some ultra-cool Youtube video to self promote. Hold on, I need a real tight t-shirt and to edit my DD-214 real quick...

I am not attacking you or your view as being completely false and useless. Obviously, your background on the subject matter is more in depth than my own. I am just questioning the theory and asking if there is a better way.

Obviously accuracy is king...no matter how many rounds you can fit in your tactical 5.11 pants or canceled carry vest (I don't recommend wearing either BTW .) If you can't hit what you are shooting at, none of this matters.

Actually, I have spent a good amount of time training and reading, and I continue to do so. I also try to questions whomever I am training with and pick their brains on the subject matter. I have no idea how many rounds are enough...which I why the title of the thread was "are we" not "we are cheating our selves"


I carry the gun I shoot the best and that holds the most amount of rounds that I can comfortably carry with-in reason. Normally, 10-15 round capacity plus a spare magazine and hope that will be enough if the time ever comes that I need to use it. Does that mean I am better equipped to handle something over a guy that is carrying a 5 shot j-frame. Not at all, the software driving the system is king. All the other hardware and everything else is nice to have.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I am not attacking you or your view as being completely false and useless. Obviously, your background on the subject matter is more in depth than my own. I am just questioning the theory and asking if there is a better way.

I didn't take it that way. My point is, there's no reason to carry the minimum unless that's the best you can do. If you can carry something that holds 15 rounds daily and are good with it, carry that. Why change to an LCP just because that's "enough"? Now, if you work in an NPE where getting caught means getting fired, that LCP may start to look more appealing and knowing that it will be enough to nearly any situation should encourage going ahead and carrying it and having confidence in it. I carry a P226 most all the time, but when I jog it's too big, so I compromise down to a P245. I know the P245 is "enough", but I'm better with the P226 so I carry it when I can.

Good for you on training and reading. Seeking reading and training on things like conflict avoidance, pre-attack indicators, emergency first aid and not just shooting is a high reward endeavor. Adding items other than weapons to our EDC, such as a tourniquet and a knife with a glass punch. If you really want to get into statistics and how we can do better, those are areas where I'd start. Capacity tends to devolve into an emotional argument based on conjecture and hypothetical gunfights. Few people doubt the validity of knowing how to treat a GSW or save a choking person.

 

[Onionsanddragons]

Everyone that chooses to take a high speed shooting class over a class like ECQC w Southnarc, managing confrontations with Cedartop, seminars or experiential labs with behavior experts like Joe Navarro, William Aprill or other psych/violence experts is statistically cheating themselves.

Your basic, quality handgun class with follow up practice will give you the skills to manage a vast majority of random encounters (aside from the Baator table, that chart is crazy hard and everything on it is immune to weapons below +3).

Mindset training will teach you how to keep out of those situations, and yo predict random violence before it hits you in the face. The ultimate advantage that random attackers have is the initiative, and this is borne out in most cases. Removing that advantage in fact gives the "victim" the edge.