Trunk Monkey
member
....without identifying a source.
I would tend to discount most of everything he presents as fact..
Wouldn't the FBI be his source? (Even if he incorrectly references them?
....without identifying a source.
I would tend to discount most of everything he presents as fact..
I don't know about "hypocritical" but it's definitely not wise.What goes hand-in-hand with number of shots fired is engagement distance.
Saying you want to be "above average" and carry a weapon with 10+ rounds, but then dismiss longer range practice (25+ yards) as not needed for a defensive shooting is being somewhat hypocritical.
That was the Peach House RV Park, outside of Early, Texas, nowhere near Houston. The cop had an AR15, but the perp was behind a tree from the cop and the cop's shots were not hitting the perp. Vic Stacy could see the perp. Stacy had stupidly/unwisely/shortsightedly (pick your own term for the bad choice) brought his .357 Colt Python and not his own AR15 that was sitting next to the door, loaded with 30 rounds that he passed on the way out. So Stacy had the advantage of trying to shoot at the exposed perp who was fighting with the cop. Instead of an easy COM shot with the AR15, the first shot hit the perp in the leg which dropped the guy, who then turned his efforts on Stacy. Stacy received cuts from a near miss that kicked up rocks into his leg. Stacy's fired 4 more times as the deputy was also shooting at the perp and after those shots, the perp was dead.or just assuming the perp will have a handgun, not a long gun.
a cop was in a gun battle with a perp in a trailer park (houston, texas i believe). the perp had a 30-30 lever gun and the cop had a pistol. another trailer park resident used his 357 magnum pistol @ 60 yards to shoot and incapacitate the perp.
murf
Absolutely!My point here is that it's not the tools you choose that will give you the edge in a fight. It's how well you can employ those tools.
Again, there are many variables.I learned just how random and unpredictable any encounter that might lead to gunplay was. One individual is slightly wounded in a crime event and dies right there... The next victim is stabbed right through the heart at 3Am while laying in bed at home - then jumps up and chases the offender on foot for a block or two before finally bleeding out... Street guys shooting at each other at close range, both sides armed, and no one is even scratched...
Yes indeed.. Yes, there is some value in using stats to study what's occurred in the past in an effort to better forecast what young officers (and by extension an armed citizen... ) might face - but only in a classroom situation. In real life nothing is ever clear cut in a confrontation .....
Personally, I think some trainer somewhere made it up because it sounds coolWhere does this statistic originate from?
You did generate some interesting conversation even if it wasn’t your intent.To be clear, my intent in starting this thread WASNT to justify my choices or tell "you" what yours should be.
I just wanted to find the basis of the rumor.
You did generate some interesting conversation even if it wasn’t your intent.
I’ve seen the “FBI study” cited numerous times over the years in articles in the firearms press and online. But I’ve never seen the study itself. I think the rumor started from a study of police shootings that was conducted in the late 70s or early 80s. Some of the other interesting conclusions was that most happened in low light (I honestly don’t remember the percentages) and that most happened at very close range. It might have been an NYPD study or it might have been some gun writers analysis of the NYPD shooting report. I do know that it’s been floating around out there for at least 30 years and maybe longer.
I have seen this statistic posted on every single internet gun form I have ever read.
"According to the FBI the average (civilian) gun fight is 3 rounds (sometimes they add "at 3 yards, in 3 seconds). "
When you ask for a specific cite none seems to be available.
I have looked all over. I looked in the Uniform Crime Report. I looked at the Kleck Study. I even looked at the Rand Study.
I can not find anything even close to those figures.
Where does this statistic originate from?
I have NEVER come across a single web article with creditable checkable sources. A whole lot of "researched thousands of actual gun fights" from hundreds of jurisdictions and came up with... blahblahblah BS. But no actual real checkable statistics to back ANY of it up! ...my college writing professor (of decades ago) would have given me a huge fat "F" if I tried to turn in what is commonly accepted as fact on the internet these days!
I have concluded that all those statistics come from credible internet experts like ourselves that have never drawn a weapon in self defense but have the intellectual ability to reason it out for ourselves and preach what we come up with as gospel for civilian gun fights!
I have NEVER come across a single web article with creditable checkable sources. A whole lot of "researched thousands of actual gun fights from hundreds of jurisdictions and came up with"... blahblahblah BS. But no actual real checkable statistics to back ANY of it up! ...my college writing professor (of decades ago) would have given me a huge fat "F" if I tried to turn in what is commonly quoted as fact on the internet these days! All the antidotal evidence I always hear sited isn't worth the .00001¢ of hard drive space it is taking up on some web server some where!
If you are going base your statistics on ACTUAL shooting events you had darn well better list the time, location, parties involved (which I can see how this one piece of information might be redacted), police department and the number of the police report for EVERY single last one of them... or I will consider it just fanciful fiction!
M. Ayoob used to quote from a NYPD study, but nothing at all recently.
Wonder why.
Very true indeed.One of the big problems is that no one collects the data we seek. Probably the best data out there is compiled by Tom Givens from debriefs of his students who have had deadly force encounters. But that is a very small sample.
True also.t would be nice if there was a comprehensive after action review done after every defensive gun use, but there is not. Even police shootings (which are much better documented then civilian defensive gun uses) are not documented to any kind of nationwide standard and what documentation does exist isn’t readily available.
That's a key point.If you guys really believe that in most gunfights, anyone -- notably, anyone who doesn't routinely get into gunfights -- stops shooting after firing only one or two, average of three, shots, you're fooling yourselves.
what could one conclude from an average?