Because there are never multiple attackers.


PDA






dom1104
March 10, 2010, 01:09 PM
For the people who say that all crime in USA is a "Average of 3 shots" and multiple attackers never happen so you dont need large magazines.

Tell that to this extremely lucky little boy.

Boy makes chilling 911 call

Police in Norwalk, Calif., are calling a 7-year-old boy a hero after he hid in the bathroom to call 911 as gunmen invaded his familys home.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-911-tape10-2010mar10,0,4564343.story

If you enjoyed reading about "Because there are never multiple attackers." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CoRoMo
March 10, 2010, 01:12 PM
Sure, a lot of incidences see more than 3 shots fired, but a great deal see only one shot, maybe two. I would assume that three shots is only the average, not the fixed limit.

wishin
March 10, 2010, 01:46 PM
This account balances out the statistics, more than 1 attacker and zero shots fired.

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2010, 02:51 PM
Wait and see how this story unfolds. These killings were probably not random. There was probably some involvement with organized crime or the drug trade and the boys father probably had some previous illegal dealings with the people who shot him.

Usually the type of people who commit property crimes like breaking into houses, do so because they are lazy and want something for little effort. If you make it a little hard on them with lights, good locks or a barking dog they simply move on to an easier target.

Unless you are involved in the drug trade or international espionage, the chances of more than one lone nutcase breaking in when you are obviously at home is extremely remote. But even if some group were to kick down your door and you started shooting they would probably scatter. Gun fighting is too much like work and most people will go to extreme lengths to avoid it.

There is a world of difference between being attacked by multiples of common criminals and a group of trained soldiers. Criminals are not fighting for a cause greater than themselves nor do they face court martial for retreating without orders. The typical crack head is probably not willing to lay down his life so that one of his buddies can carry off your big screen TV.

That being said, there is always a chance of some type of calamity like the L A riots or hurricane Katrina or war where civilized society breaks down into anarchy and there is no police protection. That is why you need a modern high capacity firearm.

EddieNFL
March 10, 2010, 02:54 PM
The typical crack head is probably not willing to lay down his life so that one of his buddies can carry off your big screen TV.

Depends on how recently he hit the pipe.

shockwave
March 10, 2010, 03:05 PM
Criminals are not fighting for a cause greater than themselves nor do they face court martial for retreating without orders. The typical crack head is probably not willing to lay down his life so that one of his buddies can carry off your big screen TV.

Based on reports ("Armed Citizen," my local paper, etc.), often one shot is all it seems to take. No two cases are identical, but the script is usually for bad guy to intimidate, and homeowner to be compliant. Occasionally you read about an exchange of gunfire, but those shots are usually spent in retreat. The Worst Case Scenario of amped-up psycho on PCP who laughs off .44 slugs to the chest is unlikely in the extreme. Sure, won't hurt to have 17+1 9mm at your disposal, but 5 in the snubbie will probably save the day.

That being said, there is always a chance of some type of calamity like the L A riots or hurricane Katrina or war where civilized society breaks down into anarchy and there is no police protection.

Curiously, the same calculus seems to apply. I remember those Korean store owners on the roofs of their shops with handguns and shotguns, and they successfully defended their property without actually shooting anyone. The rioter will climb through a window and grab some stuff, but they aren't inclined to face gunfire for that. Here, we saw a very small number of armed citizens holding off a mob. So it seems to be a truism that people try to avoid having bullets enter their bodies when they are given the choice to go do something else.

average_shooter
March 10, 2010, 03:20 PM
There was probably some involvement with organized crime or the drug trade and the boys father probably had some previous illegal dealings with the people who shot him.

Owen, jump to conclusions much?

From the article linked: Authorities said one of the suspects grabbed the boy and asked who he called. "911," the boy responded, according to the department.

The suspects fled without injuring anyone or taking any property, authorities said

Also, if you listen to the (heartbreaking) audio of the boy's call, it sounds to me like he was telling the dispatcher that the men first rang the doorbell, then forced their way into the home when the door was opened.

Occam's Razor
March 10, 2010, 03:39 PM
Wait and see how this story unfolds. These killings were probably not random. There was probably some involvement with organized crime or the drug trade and the boys father probably had some previous illegal dealings with the people who shot him.
...........................What killings? Whose father was shot?

From the article:
The suspects fled without injuring anyone or taking any property, authorities said.

ghitch75
March 10, 2010, 03:44 PM
should have had a double 12g next to the bed and there wouldn't be a man hunt!!!!

TexasBill
March 10, 2010, 04:34 PM
Anyone else notice the cops didn't show up until after the incident was over?

We have a problem from time to time down here with small groups (usually a duo or trio) of bad guys busting in a door or attacking someone in their driveway. In fact, a couple of the less bright ones tried to carjack a cop in an unmarked police car (bad choice). In these situations, it doesn't matter so much whether you have the ol' 50-cal with a full belt or a Glock with a 30-round clip, it's what you have ready to hand when the splinters start flying. Incidentally, for those with bedroom arsenals, these types of attacks don't normally happen late at night; they're in the evening when people are still up and active.

It's like the poor woman on the security system ads: her ex has broken in and the security service calls to see if anything's wrong. That's a very poor time for a chat and it delays a call to police. Worthless. The lady really needed Smith & Wesson Security but try advertising that on TV.

Five on you beats fifty somewhere else.

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 10, 2010, 04:48 PM
Yeah thats the flaw about those comercials, If your running from someone thats breaking in the last thing i'm gonna do is stop and answer the phone, plus the cops would be a few minutes away while the guy can do his harm. But they want you to believe that all criminals run from a simple alarm.

ForumSurfer
March 10, 2010, 04:55 PM
But there were never ANY shots fired in this incident. Suppose the homeowner managed to draw and fire if he had a safe opportunity to do so. Who's to say that the other attackers wouldn't cut and run? Who's to say that they wouldn't have gunned him and his family down once he missed that first shot? He's out gunned and out numbered. Even if you have a Glock and a 30 round mag, can you be fast enough to pull off 3 spinal cord shots? These are armed bad guys waving guns, giving them double taps and waiting for them to bleed out might not be enough. :uhoh:

Looks like one of those situations where I can see both sides of the argument. Drawing a weapon on 3 armed bad guys may be playing out a losing hand and jeopardizing your family's life. Playing it safe and letting them take what they want may work, but they may want more than physical possessions. I'd be inclined to fire on the boldest of the 3 first, but who knows...that could be my last unwise decision or I could save the day for my family.:confused:

TexasBill
March 10, 2010, 05:11 PM
Or you could slow them down with a hail of gunfire, perhaps forcing them to retreat or scatter and allowing time for family to escape or obtain additional firepower. In that case, it would be handy to have a nice, fat magazine.

Carl Levitian
March 10, 2010, 06:45 PM
Why not go all the way back to the begining, and ask why did mommy or daddy open the door to some strangers just because they rang the door bell?

With a good strong door, a good strong dead bolt, and a window to see any I.D., why open a door for people you don't know.

After more than 40 years of reading the American Rifleman and the Armed Citizen page first thing every month, I've never seen an account of any running gun battle involving a home owner and a criminal/criminals. Here we have a case where a little boy said he called 911, and the so called bad guys take off running. The little kid with a cell phone did as much as a guy with a gun.

So how does this case prove you need as much firepower as Rambo?

jfh
March 10, 2010, 06:48 PM
Inaccurate reading and wild speculation. Guys, let it go....

Jim H.

danprkr
March 10, 2010, 08:54 PM
Yeah, the way the anti's could/will spin that is that none of us need guns because the mere mention of 911 causes attackers to flee. Stupid of course, but that's how they'll try to make it out. Betcha a buck.

EddieNFL
March 10, 2010, 08:56 PM
The little kid with a cell phone did as much as a guy with a guy.

How did this thread turn gay?

Owen Sparks
March 10, 2010, 09:19 PM
The first report I heard said that the boys father was shot and I believed it.

That being said, if all it took to disperse the home invaders was a kid calling 911, what would a magazine full of bullets do? Common criminals usually scramble at the first sign of armed resistance.

Buck Snort
March 11, 2010, 12:49 AM
"How did this thread turn gay?"

Oh! Those thilly boys are just EVERYWHERE!!

David E
March 11, 2010, 01:30 AM
the "3 shots fired" stat is WRONG.

It does NOT include "no shots fired," as some think.

It DOES include: accidental discharges, warning shots, suicides, animal put downs, etc.

These are not even "confrontational" self defense situations, but they are lumped together with them, skewing the number downward.

Zoidberg523
March 11, 2010, 01:51 AM
Or you could slow them down with a hail of gunfire

I would hate to live next door to you. :uhoh:

Remember that whether you fire one shot, or empty the mag, you're still accountable for each bullet, and a jury will not think highly of a "hail of gunfire" as an escape tactic.

[No offense meant.]

EddieNFL
March 11, 2010, 07:45 AM
I would hate to live next door to you. :uhoh:

Remember that whether you fire one shot, or empty the mag, you're still accountable for each bullet, and a jury will not think highly of a "hail of gunfire" as an escape tactic.

[No offense meant.]
Well, you have to survive to be charged or sued.

wishin
March 11, 2010, 07:58 AM
the "3 shots fired" stat is WRONG.

It does NOT include "no shots fired," as some think.

It DOES include: accidental discharges, warning shots, suicides, animal put downs, etc.

These are not even "confrontational" self defense situations, but they are lumped together with them, skewing the number downward.
Interesting. Where do I find these "crime" stats?

CZ223
March 11, 2010, 08:50 AM
seem to be more common lately, especially in home invasions. It seems like a lot of the stories documented in "Armed Citizen" involve more than one home invader. It also seems like it is becoming more and more common for breakins to happen while people are home and awake. Even here in Maine, not exactly a hotbed of criminal activity, we have had several home invasions in the past year that involved multiple attackers, some of which turned extremely violent. In one case a pair of violent individuals broke into a home and attacked a man and his daughter with machetes. The girl was about 10 at the time and has to live with scars for the rest of her life.

I don't know how many bullets it takes to stop the "average confrontation" but, since I have always been a little bit above average, I'll carry as many as I can.:neener:

gym
March 11, 2010, 11:47 AM
What do you do in a shootout when you run out of ammo? It's ok to have more than 1 gun, most here do, so why not keep a Hi-cap Glock type pistol in the house, available for such incidents. Regardless of how rare, they do happen. You can carry your 38 or whatever you please, and still leave yourself the option of having another Hi capacity weapon for extraordinary situations. Having lived through 18 years of hurricanes , I can attest to the need for this. After 3 days with no food or water, it got pretty scary in some areas of FL. There were little or no emergency services, and groups of people wandering through the streets looking for anything of use to them. Many businesses were looted and homes broken into. Like Louisiana much went unreported, "they don't want to scare the public". But there is no doubt we will see more bad things like storms, power failures, and who knows what else, so why limit your ability to ward off an attack with 5 bullets.

nathan
March 11, 2010, 11:53 AM
A big doberman is better than a Brink home security which doesnt work all the time.

Mp7
March 11, 2010, 12:13 PM
I dont wear a parachute when boarding passenger flights,
i wouldnt wear a big heavy "combat" pistol for EDC either.

like GYM above me said ... have a plan, and have adequate gear.
If you carry the whole stuff around everyday is a personal
assessment of needs in the individual situation.

miamiboy
March 11, 2010, 12:29 PM
I think the old saying of "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it" shows its relevance here. But the average of 3 shots statistic seems to be thrown out as wildly as the "you're 43 times more likely..." blah blah blah. I believe providing the median number of shots in addition to the average would help people prepare a bit better, but I guess you can't get everything you ask for.

Zoidberg523
March 11, 2010, 01:12 PM
Well, you have to survive to be charged or sued.

I'm pretty sure that no matter what situation you might find yourself in, there is always a better option than, "Fire randomly in their direction (repeatedly), and make a mad scramble for another room." ;)

EddieNFL
March 11, 2010, 02:21 PM
I'm pretty sure that no matter what situation you might find yourself in, there is always a better option than, "Fire randomly in their direction (repeatedly), and make a mad scramble for another room." ;)
I guess you could check with your lawyer. There is a difference between random fire and suppressing fire.

Zach S
March 12, 2010, 08:57 AM
It's like the poor woman on the security system ads: her ex has broken in and the security service calls to see if anything's wrong. That's a very poor time for a chat and it delays a call to police.
A few years ago, a member here mentioned he bought a house with one of those security systems. He forgot to disarm it one night and set it off. Rather than disarming it, he decided to see how long it took for the phone to ring. He stared at his watch for three minutes...

Its about on par with my experiences at work. If the power goes out for a second, it sets off a bunch of alarms. It always takes a few minutes for them to call.

gym
March 12, 2010, 12:52 PM
On Alarm systems, they are just a deterrent, I have been best friends with a guy for many years who owns an alarm company. It's only as good as the response time is in the area where you live. If it's a busy day and there are a lot of calls, it could take hours. I have personally seen it take from a minute to several hours for a car to respond. If it's a "panic" alarm, "and it goes out as a robbery in progress", then it should take minutes. But it's all subjective. My wife set it off twice in twenty years in Fl, and I will tell you that the Police in Broward were very thorough, they , banged on the door and came in with shotguns at the ready, cleared the entire house before relaxing their guard. It depends on where you are and how busy they are. A regular "break in" like a window or a door is usually going out as a different signal, depending on how they zoned it and set it up. I like cameras in combination with the alarm and a dog. I would have the dog anyway so it's not part of my preparedness but sure helps. Cameras are cheap now, $300. for front and rear of a house, and less for an apartment. You can have the feed go to an off premises location, so no one can grab anything and destroy the footage. No one wants to be on camera, they may figure they have a few minutes with the alarm, or even cut the wires, "which is easy" but they are still caught on tape. It's less cost than a pistol, and will usually send the thief to another location, unless he is batman.
Then comes your Gun. If anyone is going to go through that much trouble to get into my house, I want to have at least one gun that can hold them off till help arrives, since I don't know when that is, I would opt for the most I could get, not necessarily the same weapon I would carry, but anyone prepared to go past cameras alarms and dogs, has to be a little nuts, or have the wrong address.

Zoidberg523
March 12, 2010, 02:27 PM
I guess you could check with your lawyer. There is a difference between random fire and suppressing fire.

Not when four or five bullets hit your neighbor's house and one kills their child. I don't think a jury will see that much difference between the two: they will just see "Negligent Homicide".

wvshooter
March 12, 2010, 02:50 PM
I don't wear a parachute when boarding passenger flights. I wouldn't wear a big heavy "combat" pistol for EDC either.

I used to carry a Kahr CW9. Slim, comfortable and light weight. I don't do that anymore. Now it's always full size and high capacity and I carry all day every day. It was uncomfortable at first but after a couple years with a full size weapon I'd feel naked and not adequately protected without it. A full size all steel gun is so much easier to shoot accurately and rapidly if necessary.

EddieNFL
March 12, 2010, 03:06 PM
Not when four or five bullets hit your neighbor's house and one kills their child. I don't think a jury will see that much difference between the two: they will just see "Negligent Homicide".
"If is the middle word in life." Colonel Kurtz

wishin
March 12, 2010, 04:01 PM
A few years ago, a member here mentioned he bought a house with one of those security systems. He forgot to disarm it one night and set it off. Rather than disarming it, he decided to see how long it took for the phone to ring. He stared at his watch for three minutes...


While it's critically important that the police respond to an alarm in a timely manner, their reponse is predicated on the monitoring service's call to them. Both of the monitoring services we used in Atlanta asked us how long they were to wait before calling the house to verify the breech and subsequently alert the poilce. Because of the incidence of many false alarms, residents are normally charged a fee after x number of these. Consequently, some homeowner's set long delay times, circumventing the effectiveness of the system.

An alarm system's siren can spook some intruders, but to be truly effective the system needs to be tied to a dependable monitor and under a no delay call back. Every so often, we would let it go off to test the call response time.

If you enjoyed reading about "Because there are never multiple attackers." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!