Actual civilian gunfights

[ATLDave]

Those are excellent odds but, should I be faced with dirt-bags wanting to kill me for whatever reason, I'm not tipping the scales in their favor. This isn't paranoia... it's just solid conviction/determination that I'll never short-change myself to the advantage of dirt-bags.

Never? So I take it you wear a kevlar vest all the time. Complete with ballistic plates. What's your helmet of choice? Seems like those things would do a lot more to increase your chances of surviving a violent encounter than any number of reload rounds.

 

[Mike1234567]

Never? So I take it you wear a kevlar vest all the time. Complete with ballistic plates. What's your helmet of choice? Seems like those things would do a lot more to increase your chances of surviving a violent encounter than any number of reload rounds.

I don't know what I wrote to deserve that but, whatever it was, I apologize. No, I'm no fanatic... I don't even have a tin foil hat.

 

[momano]

Good, provocative, thoughts! My wife and I have have only been carrying since July. This thread will give us lots to consider. Here's something I can contribute to the OP:
http://gunssavelives.net/

 

[ATLDave]

I don't know what I wrote to deserve that but, whatever it was, I apologize. No, I'm no fanatic... I don't even have a tin foil hat.

LOL, sorry if that sounded caustic. I was just trying to point out that claims that one would "never" want to compromise on their ability to survive a gunfight, or that we should be prepared for the "worst case scenario," are false, if taken literally. There is always some degree of risk/reward balancing going on, otherwise we'd never leave the house!

One theme of this thread is that all the expense, effort, and energy that goes into preparing to survive a protracted gunfight as a civilian are chasing events that are pretty far out the probability curve. Since we all do risk/reward balancing, probabilities matter.

 

[Bobson]

From OP:
I wonder how often a protracted gunfight, with multiple rounds exchanged, actually breaks out involving one or more non-criminal civilians. Anybody have any data, or even anecdotes, on this?

I have no idea why two non-criminal civilians would be exchanging gunfire.

From OP:
I ask simply because some folks here must clank like a bulldozer walking around, what with all the spare ammo, BUG's, etc. How often does this stuff even come into play in the real world?

Like Mike123etc said, the odds are incredibly low. The laymen answer to your question is almost never - maybe once in a lifetime. That being said, it only needs to happen to you once to bring your life to a screeching halt, right? If you aren't prepared for it, the odds that it'll only be once in your lifetime increases exponentially, if you get my drift.

Just as a side note, I think the "number of rounds in a gunfight" debate is pure stupidity. There was a serious lack of reading comprehension skills displayed in this thread.

 

[ATLDave]

Bobson, what you say makes sense. But see my prior exchange with Mike1234567 re: risk/reward. I strongly suspect that wearing a vest and helmet would do more to increase the odds of survival than a reload mag or BUG. Yet virtually no civilians wear them. Why? The cost is too high. They're too inconvenient. They're too conspicuous. They're too expensive and too much trouble. So we decide to accept the risk of leaving our homes unarmored.

The same calculation gets made with various other pieces of equipment. Carrying a gun is about dealing with remote contingencies for most civvies anyway. Carrying two guns is about rare to non-existent permutations of already-remote contingencies. If somebody decides they want to do that, no skin off my nose, and maybe they're right. But based on what information is available, it seems that preparation for a protracted gun battle as a civilian is no more important than preparing for the zombie apocalypse, since both seem equally likely.

 

[Bobson]

Bobson, what you say makes sense. But see my prior exchange with Mike1234567 re: risk/reward. I strongly suspect that wearing a vest and helmet would do more to increase the odds of survival than a reload mag or BUG. Yet virtually no civilians wear them. Why? The cost is too high. They're too inconvenient. They're too conspicuous. They're too expensive and too much trouble. So we decide to accept the risk of leaving our homes unarmored.

The same calculation gets made with various other pieces of equipment. Carrying a gun is about dealing with remote contingencies for most civvies anyway. Carrying two guns is about rare to non-existent permutations of already-remote contingencies. If somebody decides they want to do that, no skin off my nose, and maybe they're right. But based on what information is available, it seems that preparation for a protracted gun battle as a civilian is no more important than preparing for the zombie apocalypse, since both seem equally likely.

I see your obvious point, and I definitely agree with most of what you said (the exception being that a zombie apocalypse is about as likely as a civilian gunfight).

From what I understand, and people I know who carry a firearm, the idea of carrying a BUG is based on the old adage, One is none, two is one. In other words, if you're going to carry a firearm to protect yourself in the remote possibility you'll ever need it, you may as well carry a backup gun for that same unlikely situation. Which makes sense in a certain light, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Like you said, a vest and helmet would likely be far more effective means of defense than a BUG and/or spare mags. Again, I strongly agree, but like I said, you need to draw the line somewhere. There's a fine line between being prepared, and paranoid schizophrenia. For the purposed of the average civilian, I'd say the line falls between carrying a BUG, and wearing a ballistic vest and Kevlar helmet daily. Vests and helmets are expensive, heavy, and cumbersome; not to mention wearing them in public will make you look like you're totally insane. On the other hand, BUGs (which are pretty widely accepted as being snub-nose revolvers because of their compact size and high reliability) are very inexpensive, extremely lightweight, and easy to conceal. The ratio of low cost - low burden - high security (for a BUG) is far better than the ratio of a vest/helmet (high cost - immense burden - mediocre security).

 

[ATLDave]

Bobson, lots to agree with in that post. Two minor quibbles:

1. I didn't say a civilian gunfight was as likely as the zombie apocalypse. I said, for most of us, a protracted gunfight was about equally likely as a zombified cataclysm. An armed confrontation, unfortunately, is measurably more likely.

2. Good points about some of the costs of a BUG versus a vest; social costs count, too. But the old saw "two is one..." is a pretty flimsy reed. After all, if the premise is that guns are so likely to fail that one automatically subtracts one from the total, why isn't the BUG also a zero?

Given the strictures of SD to justify a civilian shooting, I tend to think if one has time to fire the first gun to empty or to a stoppage, realize it, react and draw the BUG... well, the threat will usually have reached you or fled. LEOs have to pursue someone who flees from gunfire. I, as a civilian, have to let them go (then call the cops, and probably puke from adrenaline overload and spend the next 6 hours explaining myself).

Now, it's possible that the costs of carrying a BUG are so low that its virtually-guaranteed uselessness is not a problem. Hey, a free solution to a .0000001% chance problem is still free. And that may be the case for you. But I think it's hard to rationally justify a regular old civilian feeling a need for a BUG, or a fear-based desire to carry three mags.

 

[Bobson]

1. I didn't say a civilian gunfight was as likely as the zombie apocalypse. I said, for most of us, a protracted gunfight was about equally likely as a zombified cataclysm. An armed confrontation, unfortunately, is measurably more likely.

If by protracted, you meant a gunfight over an extended period of time (reference to additional magazines), I still don't agree that it's about as likely as having to deal with zombies. I understand your hyperbole, of course, but I think it's over-dramatic. While extremely unlikely, an extended gunfight isn't at all impossible. On the other hand, flesh-eating, tireless, man-hunting zombies are impossible (though some will disagree).

2. Good points about some of the costs of a BUG versus a vest; social costs count, too. But the old saw "two is one..." is a pretty flimsy reed. After all, if the premise is that guns are so likely to fail that one automatically subtracts one from the total, why isn't the BUG also a zero?

Probably because of a point I'll make later, but for the time being, suffice it to say that I believe, for most people, carrying a gun is nothing more than a means to the end of social anxiety (I don't mean this as an insult). If one is none, and two is also none, carrying a gun doesn't solve their problem.

Now, it's possible that the costs of carrying a BUG are so low that its virtually-guaranteed uselessness is not a problem. Hey, a free solution to a .0000001% chance problem is still free. And that may be the case for you. But I think it's hard to rationally justify a regular old civilian feeling a need for a BUG, or a fear-based desire to carry three mags.

Actually, I don't carry any firearm whatsoever, much less a BUG. I suppose I could throw loaded magazines at an attacker, but I don't carry any of those either. I just meant that I can understand the mindset of someone willing to carry a BUG. However, even if I did carry (and I plan to someday, because I'm working toward a career in law enforcement), I probably won't keep a BUG on my person, unless required to because of my employment, or something along those lines.

I do agree with you that based on the circumstances and guidelines applicable for civilian SD, additional magazines may be unnecessary. That being said, the answer may very well be as simple as someone feeling that they don't need to justify carrying an extra magazine or two, just as they don't need to justify carrying a primary firearm in the first place.

As I said earlier, my personal opinion is that carrying a weapon is more of a peace-of-mind issue than actually maintaining a tool set on one's person at all times. Many people may disagree, but I'm confident that I can debate the point well enough to convince someone in one of the three following points (provided I'm debating a person who understands and appreciates logic - many people nowadays do not):
1) To simply stop carrying altogether,
2) To concede it's [carrying a firearm] primary purpose is to put them at ease in social situations, or
3) To begin carrying large backpacks full of "tools" they'll probably never, ever use. Just like they already do, with the firearm.

Is it that cut and dry? No, there are exceptions to every rule (except zombies. It won't happen ).

 

[David E]

Carrying a 5-shot snub knowing that it may not be enough shots for a violent encounter is one thing. Thinking that your 5-shot snub holds "twice the average number of shots fired" is quite another.

In any event, it's a good idea to recognize any shortcomings and to be proficient with your chosen defense gun.

 

[ATLDave]

While extremely unlikely, an extended gunfight isn't at all impossible. On the other hand, flesh-eating, tireless, man-hunting zombies are impossible (though some will disagree).

LOL. I'm far from a zombie-phile, but that's partially because rabies basically already does create zombies. All that it would take to cause something functionally equivalent to a zombie outbreak would be a vaccine-resistant strain of rabies to take hold in a human population. Likely? Oh, heck no. About as likely as Joe Average is to become involved in an extended exchange of gunfire. There are some people, like jewelry store owners and armored car guards, who seem to have slightly better/worse odds of such an event, but someone just getting casually mugged? Not worth worrying about in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Bobson]

Then I stand corrected, and my zombie-related knowledge just grew.

I need to watch more zombie movies. Always enjoyed em, haven't seen any since 28 Days Later.

 

[mortablunt]

From looking at statistics, gun usage in crime is rather rare. Defensive gun usage against crime is also uncommon, but not at all implausible. The actual discharging of a weapon in a crime by only one party is rare. The rarest events is that both parties fire at each other. I have my own theory as to why protracted civilian gunfights are extremely rare.

The first reason is that civilians are not Police officers, armed guards, or soldiers. They are normally not taught how to fight in the same force on force gunbattle as professional weapons users are. How many civilians today, who have never been formally trained, carry a gun and would willfully and successfully be able to participate in a protracted firefight? Not many- most people would instinctively react by trying to get away as quickly as possible. Civilians also have restrictions put upon them by both laws and ideas about armament. I bet that most of you guys here only carry one handgun at a time with maybe a round in the chamber plus however many it is in the magazine, or just simply one full cylinder. You might have another magazine, clip, or some extra rounds, but there isn't much reason to normally carry a lot of ammo. Civilians normally carry in awareness that they may be attacked, but they don't come loaded like they're going for a hike in Kandahar Province. They also have restrictions on how they can act, such as in duty to retreat, limitations of castle doctrine, and the legal reality that self defense can turn into murder should the civilian press or initiate hostilities.

The second hypothesis as to why civilian gunfights are normally breif affairs is because the yare dealing with criminals. Criminals have to weigh the risks versus rewards of a crime; how much is that guy's Blu-Ray and Macbook worth versus how likely am I going to get busted? With the rate of success against theft, the odds are not too unfavorable and the penalty if caught is only a misdemeanor. However, if the victim turns out to have a gun, then suddenly, the stakes are no longer a year or two in prison with 200 hours of community service. The question becomes if the property is worth dying for, is it worth killing for, and how much attention is this going to attract? A blast of gunfire from a Remmington 870 will attract a lot more attention than a barking dog or a breaking window. Thus, unless the prize is extremely valuable, the best option becomes to get out ASAP when faced with a gun. Shots back at the victim fired escalate the stakes from breaking and entering and burglary and death, to brandishment of a deadly weapon, armed robbery, attempted murder, reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and homicide. Suddenly, those electronics don't seem so worth it.

 

[Bobson]

Outstanding deductions, and you cover pretty much all the bases between two simple, yet well-thought-out theories, including the active shooter scenario, which can be difficult.

Also, regarding

Morta's list:
#51: I am not to use TV Tropes as a source.
#89: I am not to dispel any OC or 10A fallacies.

Where can we see the whole thing? My curiosity is piqued.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This needs to steer back away from zombie-ness please.

 

[ATLDave]

LOL, I was just trying to illustrate how improbable (though not literally impossible) I think protracted gunfights for civilians are. I was trying to come up with something that non-crazy people DON'T spend much time worrying about.

 

[sgt127]

I spoke with a Dallas PD Internal affairs Investigator who responds to Officer involved shootings. He said his first question to the supervisor on scene is always: "How many rounds did the Officer fire?".

If the answer is six or less, it generally means it was a senior Officer that originally carried a revolver, or, still does. Even if he is currently carrying an auto, deep in his psyche, he slows down and keeps a little better track of his rounds fired. Likely not even a concious thought.

If the number is over six, he says it usually means it is a newer Officer that came on the department after auto's became the issue gun and he started his career with a high cap 9mm (or, 357 SIG)

He said its not hard science, just a general observation.

 

[copaup]

Having had the unfortunate experience of being in a gunfight I can state that there is no such thing as an "average gunfight." That said, I carry a spare mag more for malfunctions than for spare ammo. I carry 1 spare mag with either my 229 (13 rounds) or my 3953 (8 rounds) and one speed strip if I carry my 642 (a grand total of 10 rounds including the 5 in the gun). I have no intention of engaging in a long protracted gun battle when I should be hauling my tail in the other direction as fast as possible. Awareness and caution trump loadout every time when it comes to self preservation.

Trust me, if there are multiple assailants and they want to kill you, you will run out of time before you run out of ammo. Most likely it will be up close, in the dark, and you will be taken by suprise.

Rules for a gunfight:
1. Avoid them
2. Make every shot count
3. MOVE!
4. Refer back to rule 1

 

[Kiln]

There is a gun that only takes one shot to kill in almost EVERY shooting that it is used in.

The RPG-7. This piece of Soviet surplus is the ultimate defensive weapon. Lions, tigers, bears, and all armored or undead versions of them will be easily erradicated with just a single shot. Stash it in the trunk or under the seat and if you're attacked...BLAMMO! Threat neutralized.

Warning and disclaimer:

Do not attempt engage targets in close proximity to the user doing so may result in injury or death. Discharging the RPG-7 from within a vehicle is hazardous and should not be attempted. Effective range estimated at 100 meters. Using this weapon against lions, tigers, or bears may result legal actions against the operator of the device for animal cruelty. We are not responsible damage to property or loss of life that may result in improper (or proper) use of this item. The Soviet surplus RPG-7 may not be legal in your country, please check all rules and restrictions before you commit to buying.

Good luck and happy hunting.

Sincerely,

[fakeemail][email protected][/fakeemail]

 

[PzGren]

Who cares really for the statistical average?

If you have ever been in any fight, you will know that not two fights will be the same. You cannot train for "the" fight, you can only train to be the best you can be.

My love for guns and shooting have helped me.

 

[iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns]

One late evening last summer, around 2 am, a conversation between myself and a friend in my living room was interrupted by the sound of gunfire from outside. Two armed individuals had broken into a home at the end of my street, but the homeowner was a legal gun-owner. Thirteen shots were fired between the three involved. One of the offenders bled to death in the front yard, the other died in the hospital. The homeowner was shot in the leg but survived. I wish I knew more, but that's all I could find out, no idea they had revolvers or semi-autos or what, I could certainly tell that it was all handgun fire.

 

[Mike1234567]

LOL, sorry if that sounded caustic. I was just trying to point out that claims that one would "never" want to compromise on their ability to survive a gunfight, or that we should be prepared for the "worst case scenario," are false, if taken literally. There is always some degree of risk/reward balancing going on, otherwise we'd never leave the house!

One theme of this thread is that all the expense, effort, and energy that goes into preparing to survive a protracted gunfight as a civilian are chasing events that are pretty far out the probability curve. Since we all do risk/reward balancing, probabilities matter.

ATLDave... No problem.

When I wrote, "I'll never short-change myself to the advantage of dirt-bags", all I meant was I'm not going to go unarmed much of the time nor will I limit myself to a single magazine or cylinder with only 5 or 6 rounds in it. I carry both 10 and 15 round mags for a total of 25 rounds.

 

[summerhelp]

Looking at just the average number of shots fired is not enough in my opinion. You also have to look at the standard deviation. It has been a long time since I have taken a stats class. Let’s just assume that the average number of rounds fired in a gun fight is 3 rounds and see why we can’t just look at the average.
1+1+1+1+5+5+5+5+3+3= an average of 3
10+7+6+1+1+1+1+1+1+1= an average of 3
5+5+5+5+5+1+1+1+1+1= an average of 3
So if you only carried 3 rounds for you gun because that is the average number of rounds fired in a gunfight there is a very good chance that 3 rounds would not be enough, it’s not enough to just look at the average.

 

[eazyrider]

My point is that most of the population doesn't carry anything. So my five shot snub is better than what most have. If I come across a mad man with an AK then I will lose, and so will you with your back up mags. Now my HOME defense gun holds 17 rounds, but that gun sleeps in a drawer and I don't have to carry it around. I make my choice based on where I go everyday. I just don't see the need to carry a bunch of stuff. I am not against extra rounds at all. But I refuse to except that it is a bad idea to not have 20 or more rounds at my disposal at all times. I have a weapon and I know how to use it. That is good enough for me.

Now if my life changes and I see a need to be more heavily armed then I will change accordingly. I could care less about stats. I sometimes even go to the store without, God forbid, a gun. Again each person makes a choice.

 

[SaxonPig]

Anything MIGHT happen but the overwhelming odds are that as a civilian in a gunfight you will face a lone attacker. If there is a group they are cowards who will scatter at the first shot fired. Almost zero chance a street fight will turn into the Battle of the Bulge. Criminals are not trained and motivated soldiers. They are opportunistic cowards. They seek the helpless to victimize. Resist with effective force and they flee.

I have mentioned in the past my one experience in using a firearm to defend myself against criminal attack that resulted in a fatality. I was accosted by an armed robber who carried a 6 shot 22 revolver. I had a Colt Government Model in 45 ACP. I drew and put the first round through his chest, nicking the heart. The next 2 rounds were also in the upper torso. He turned and ran. I fired 3 more rounds missing with all 3. Slowed down for the 7th and final shot and hit him in the right kidney at a range of 50 feet bringing him down. He had pretty much bled out by that point.

Despite holding the loaded gun in his hand he didn't get off a single shot. I suppose the shock of that first gunshot wound disoriented him into being dysfunctional or all he thought about was flight. Remember what I said earlier about criminals not being interested in standing their ground against armed resistance.

Nobody knows for sure how many rounds will be fired in a fight. Too many variables. If I were to offer a guess based on what I hear and read, I suspect about 3-4 is typical. I now carry a 6 shot 357 revolver with two reloads. I feel comfortable.