According To The FBI...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Statistics or odds are why folks wear bullet proof vests instead of pants. Doesn't mean people haven't died from a severed artery in a leg, just on average a COM hit is worse.
Not to quibble, but I don't know that the severity of a COM hit is worse. The likelihood is higher.

And then there's the issue of how to mitigate the risk.
 
Likelihood is that people will survive being shot. "On average" more people are shot and survive than die.
 
Last edited:
I would say the same about the OP.

Completely counting on likelihood and averages won't save your life.
 
Last edited:
People who make stuff up like to slap a source on something to give credibility. If a yahoo says snorting cocaine prevents "beer flu" you would write them off. But if the same yahoo says "CDC says snorting cocaine prevents beer flu" you know some people are going to take a second look. A late professor, friend, and mentor of mine really helped me develop my skeptical mind. He called it his rule of criminal analysis, being able to find the bull****
 
Firearms instructor Tom Givens has a book, "Concealed Carry Class", in which he collects and presents current shooting incident statistics from various credible sources.
 
Back to the OP statement, I think that claim is interesting, because (and i'm going to slap a great big "IIRC" disclaimer, because i can't cite sources off the top of my head either, so take it a hearsay) most of the stats i can remember reading dating back to the 1990's, when i first started to learn such things, seemed to suggest that the "average" gunfight distance extrapolated from data from a couple thousand police reports and forensic analyses, was given as 7 yards, and that the hit percentage was still under 20%
 
I think the old statistics regarding the number of rounds fired, how long the fight lasts, etc, probably no longer apply in 2020. If you are in an urban area and find yourself attacked by the "mostly peaceful" rioters (or as liberals say, protestors), you are probably going be happy you have a 17 round magazine in your Glock.

Its probably better to assume you will be involved in a Blackhawk Down Mogadishu situation than the historical civilian mugging from 30 years ago. Times have changed.
 
Some number of shootings were over in three rounds or less, in seconds, at very close range.

Some trespassers with criminal intent have run away at the sound of a pump action shotgun being racked.*

I don't know how many, or what proportion of the whole, but I would not base a personal defense strategy on either scenario applying in a majority of situations.

* How many home invaders would recognized the "shee-lack" of a semi-auto bolt closing after you rolled a round onto the cartridge lifter and pressed the bolt release? There are so many scenarios not covered in gun shop, barber shop, internet discussions.
 
Figures don't lie but liars can figure. I have no idea if those numbers are made up or not but they don't seem terribly unrealistic for a civilian gunfight.
 
As if there's a guy with a stopwatch standing by at every mugging or carjacking...or ANY REAL situation for that matter. Maybe it's a fair or useable guesstimate using a carefully derived algorithm....but does it really matter? It takes what it takes in every different scenario.
 
Seems to me that it might be more likely you will encounter multiple threats now than you would have in the past. Just my guess based on all the recent rioting we have seen.
 
that sounds more like a slogan, than an actual statistic, but - I think the point is still relevant today ... few rounds, 10ish feet, very brief conflict before ending. it is a genrality, but - gives merit to training that is weighted to the most common or likely type of event/scenario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top