Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

# of rounds fired, LE vs. Civilian

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by MachIVshooter, Oct 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,262
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    I was wondering if one of our members would have a better idea where to find such statistics than I do. Seems to me that whenever you hear/read a report of civilians using a firearm to defend themselves, the number of rounds discharged are usually between 1 and 4. However, when police end up firing, seems there are frequently dozens of rounds sprayed, often with few or none finding their mark. This would also seem to indicate that civilians shoot until the threat ceases, police often fire until they are 110% sure the perp is dead. Granted, the circumstances are not the same, but it is a valid point nonetheless.


    This would make a good argument for those "only police should have guns" types.

    FWIW, I do not mean to offend any LEO's here, just a trend that I've noticed.
     
  2. Robob4

    Robob4 member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8
    Uh, I think the phrase "75% of statistics are made up on the spot" applies here. For one, until recently civilians were limited in how many rounds they could carry.
     
  3. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,262
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    :confused:

    Not here. Don't know what commy state you're in, but in most of the right to carry/shall issue states, you could pack 500 rounds if you felt like carrying the weight.

    And restricted magazines have never really been an issue. I bought many, many full capacity magazines throughout the ban.

    Hence the reason I asked for stats. In case you didn't read carefully, I clearly stated that this is a trend I have noticed.

    In the future, please refrain from posting if you do not intend to contribute to the topic. I did not ask for opinions.
     
  4. DRMMR02

    DRMMR02 member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Perhaps because police do not have to worry about being arrested for each shot they fire. When they are in a situation where they are facing an armed criminal, they are free to take whatever action they deem necessary as part of the job, whereas we face could limitless lawsuits now matter how we handle a threat. When a cop shoots a man with a gun, people(rightfully most of the time) assume he was just doing his job. But if a civilian shoots another civilian, it's a lot easier, and thus a lot more lucrative/opportunistic, for someone looking to make a lot of $$ to sue the pants off us.

    Also, think about the kinds of criminals police face as opposed to us. The type of criminal a CCWer usually faces are either a home invader, or a mugger. Both kinds of criminals are usually looking to stay as fast/hidden as possible. They are usually not looking to add a few counts of murder to their rap, so when their "victim" turns it around and points a gun at them, surprise and self preservation usually take over. Police on the other hand voluntarily face all sorts of criminals. Imagine a traffic stop, like the article on THR a few days ago. That guy with the AK knew it was a cop walking up to his car, and he knows cops are armed. The fact he still fired shows he was of a different mindset than the normal mugger/burglar. The kind of people who willingly fire on cops(people they KNOW can and will return fire) tend to need a lot more force to be dealt with.

    A mugger with a crowbar might only need the threat of a gun, or a few shots from a handgun to stop him. Whereas a man with an AK who starts a gun fight with police needs more decisive and deadly action.
     
  5. blackhawk2000

    blackhawk2000 member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Mi
    75% of facts are also appearantly made up.
     
  6. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    Usually at those "XX shots fired" police stops there are more than one officer. I've never heard of officers dropping mags, reloading, and continuing firing but then again I haven't been in any of those. It would be interesting to see if they shoot to slide lock though. From what i've heard they keep shooting until the threat is gone because BG's have killed cops after being shot fatally before.
     
  7. GregGry

    GregGry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    994
    Location:
    Milwaukee, Wi
    The number of rounds that were fired is not important.

    What is important is if the shoot was justified, and how well the officers were able to keep the rounds on target and not cause injuries to others. So what if 3 officers shot 60 rounds. If they nutralized the threat, thats what matters.

    Also, most police shootings are over with in a few rounds. The major ones where 30+ rounds are fired are the ones that everyone hears about. Thoes account for no where near what the smaller ones account for. I have talked to 30+ officers that have fired their duty weapons, some killing a perp. for most of them it was over in 6 shots, which is the ammount of ammo they had in their revolvers. For a few that were either carrying a semi-auto or a backupgun/reloaded their revolver, 10 shots and under would be the normal.

    Since the local news plays stories from around the country, it might seem like 100 big shootouts occur every day. Even if that was the case, there are so many police departments, that it would be unlikely that one close toy ou would even be involved.
     
  8. KarlG

    KarlG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Colorado
    MachIV Shooter,

    Please note that I do not have a good source for the data you asked about (sorry). Based on the information in the following article, it may be difficult to obtain the data that you seek: http://www.wesh.com/news/3340899/detail.html This article suggests that FBI data from before June of 2005 cannot be compared to that after June of 2005 because of changes in calculations: http://www.thetigerbeat.com/utilities/newsclip/pdf/2006/2006-08-13_DandC_policFindSolaceInDate_web.pdf#search=%22police%20shooting%20data%22

    In order to be useful, the basis of the statistics must be well defined and well known (which most internet statistics are not). Some questions that need to be asked to ensure that you get the proper date are : Are you specificly looking for an average number of shots per LEO per shooting at a suspect? Does it count as a zero toward the avearge if the LEO draws but doesn't shoot? Are you just looking for pistol shots or are rifle and shotgun shots included in the averages? Are you looking for information by state? ? by county? by population density? by country? Do you count gang shootings ,criminals shooting at victims, or criminals shooting at LEO's as civillians shooting to defend themselves? Does shooting a dog or a mountain lion count as a civilian shooting to defend themself? From what time frame do you want data (1970's , 1990's, 2000's)? What needs to be done to account for the period between 1994 and 2004 when magazine capacities sold with new guns were limited in the US civilliam market?

    FWIW, I have not noticed a trend of offending LEO's here. What data do you have to support this trend?
     
  9. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,262
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Virtually none. That is why I posted this request. All I have to go on is what I have seen/heard/read over the years. Defensive shootings involving civilians seem to end in very few shots fired, and the perpetrators tend to have relatively few holes in them. On the other hand, I recall many reports of LEO involved shootings were dozens of rounds were fired and suspects were hit many, many times. I have a couple of friends that work for LE agencies. One of the more recent ones that really sticks out happened a few months ago. Perp drew a gun on two officers, and officers fired. 24 rounds later, the perp was hit 7 times. The other 17 rounds hit the building behind him. About the same time, there was a heavily publicized defensive shooting in which the victim fired only 4 shots to stop two attackers; all four rounds found their mark.

    You asked for specific, so here is what I want. LE vs. Civilian, firearms lawfully discharged in defense of oneself or others against criminals in the USA, say the last 20 years. The summary I am looking for is how many shots fired per criminal threat, and how many hit or missed the target, and how often the criminal lived or died.

    4 police officers engage 2 criminals and police fire 36 rounds, one suspect is hit 4 times, the other 2 times. One survived, on died. In this instance, there were 18 rounds fired per suspect with 17% accuracy, mortality rate is 50%. Since it would be impossible to break it down per officer, averages will have to do.

    Civilian engages two attackers and fires 7 rounds, hitting one attacker twice and the other once. One attacker dies on the operating table, the other survives to be prosecuted. In this case, there were 3.5 rounds fired per attacker with 43% accuracy, mortality rate is 50%.

    I am not looking to include offensive scenarios, such as raids.

    Thus far, people seem to want to explain to me the difference between LE and civilian threats. Let me clarify: I am well aware of these differences.

    I clearly stated from the beginning that I do not intend to offend LEO's here, so if one takes offense there is nothing more I can do.

    It seems that we pro-RKBA folks get quite offended when the anti's suggest that only LE/Military should have arms. I am looking for this data to help support the argument that civilians who lawfully use firearms present no greater danger to society than LE.

    If you cannot contribute DATA, don't bother posting. If you want to write why you think these differences exist, start a thread on that topic.
     
  10. svtruth

    svtruth Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,689
    Location:
    Bradford, VT
    Amadou Diallo

    IIRC was hit with slightly fewer than 50% of the 41 rounds fired by (I think) 4 NYPD officers, one of whom did reload. He was unarmed and some of the bullets entered the soles of his feet.
     
  11. LanEvo`

    LanEvo` Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    297
    Personally, I would be interested in these data as well. Anti-gun types are evidently not bothered by LEOs carrying 40+ rounds of "baby killing hollowpoints" on them. But the thought of a trained, motivated, law-abiding citizen carrying a 5-shot snubbie gives them fits. If you could show that licensed CCW holders were no more likely to harm "innocent bystanders" during defensive shooting, that would go some ways to deflate their argument.

    Having said that, I suspect you'll find it difficult to pinpoint the data you're looking for. Good luck and keep us posted.
     
  12. KarlG

    KarlG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Colorado
    "Breaking News" from 2001 suggests that such data has been difficult to obtain for several years. The linked article throws out a few
    numbers but with no backup. I don't think that defensible numbers will come from the internet. Maybe check the bibliography from John Lott's books to point you toward some good data.
    linked article
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2006
  13. KarlG

    KarlG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Colorado
    Try to get this book

    Marshall, Evan P. and Edwin J. Sanow. Stopping Power: A Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 2001. Call Number: HV 8077 .M277 2001
    Abstract: The culmination of a collection of 25 years of actual shooting data. The results of police and civilian shootings with all the major handgun calibers are provided in order to analyze ammunition types. Contains input from many individuals, organizations, and experts.

    May have number of shots in it???
     
  14. Trebor

    Trebor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,817
    You aren't going to find concrete data. Here's why:

    No one tracks civilian shootings. There are no statistics available on the number of rounds fired by civilians in self defense, the number of attackers faced by civilians, or the percentage of attackers killed by civilians. That stuff just isn't recorded on an aggrerate basis. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

    The idea that "most shootings involve three to five shots being fired," is derived from old information in the NYPD SOP 9 report. The SOP 9 tracks NYPD officer involved shootings and does include details on the number of attackers, number of rounds fired, and the outcome of the event. Until about the last 10 years, the NYPD used six shot revolvers. As a result, the majority of their shootings involved six shots or less. Since the NYPD has switched to Glock pistols, and the amount of rounds in the gun has increased, so has the average number of shots fired per incident. I don't know the current number though.

    In short, what you are looking for doesn't exisit. The reason the NYPD tracks officer involved shootings is so they can look at the data to try to spot trends that might affect how they should train their officers. There is no similiar organization tracking civilian shootings.

    The best you can do is look at news reports of shootings. That won't give you data though, just random information about the incidents that you happen to hear about. Even if you see an article about a defensive shooting, the facts are often wrong or incomplete.
     
  15. Trebor

    Trebor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,817
    Don't bother. The incidents reported in the books are by no means comprehensive. Just what the authors were able to get enough info to use. It's not a valid sample.

    That, and if you think there is a scientifically valid set of statistics presented in that book, I'll sell you a bridge in Broolkyn to go with it.
     
  16. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,262
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Exactly why I have been looking for credible stats, but there just doesn't seem to be any compiled data. Would have made a useful argument for the anti's, but I think I'll just have to abandon this idea.

    KarlG-thanks for the links, but I think Trebor is right. Anything I can put together with available data will be inaccurate. Kinda like the automakers claiming that X-model is the longest lasting based solely on the numbers registered the last Y-number of years.

    Facts tend to be useless against anti's anyway.
     
  17. CornCod

    CornCod Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    816
    "It ain't Necessarily so."

    There are two types of civilians who own guns, the folks who keep grandaddy's old Harrington and Richardson .38S&W in the nightable and firearms hobbyists. The hoobyists shoot more and more skillfully than the cops. Rural cops shoot more than Urban cops. Folks on the east coast think most cops are pretty knowledgeable about guns. But, as wacky old Al Jolsen used to sing "It ain't Necessarily so."
     
  18. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Not to nitpick, but I'm quite put off by the reference to LEO's as somehow being "non civilians".

    LEO's are as "civilian" as anyone else. It's just a job. An important job, and I'm not bashing, but it's just a civilian job.

    Non-Civilians are members of the Armed Services.
     
  19. Harley Quinn

    Harley Quinn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,490
    Location:
    No. CA.
    Commy eetc..

    I have a request, about the term Commy etc..
    Quit, I say Quit using it. I am about sick, of hearing from lack of intelligence on the part of that, disrespectful remark.:uhoh:

    I am sure that in the state that gets called that, there are very few who are of that particular mind set, if they are, well it is a free country, Or not... :uhoh:

    I am now going to go on a rampage and start reading the disrespectful slant that this board has allowed to continue. And I am going to comment on it till it gets to most of you slanted and opinionated people.:uhoh:

    High road HMMM :what:

    HQ:)
     
  20. halfacop

    halfacop Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    Umm.. They are "sworn employees" of a governmental agency. The same as a sworn member of the Armed Forces. I wouldn't consider this a civilian job.
     
  21. Checkman

    Checkman member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Idaho
    There is a legal difference between sworn law enforcement personnel and private citizens, but you are correct in that cops are also civilians and not military. I usually call "civilians" Private Citizens or The Citizenry or just citizens. Of course I am also a citizen of the United States, but as a cop I work under some different rules. At least for my job.
    l
     
  22. Harley Quinn

    Harley Quinn Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,490
    Location:
    No. CA.
    Checkman

    Could be one of the reasons I have not posted at another location and got booted, :what: what an attack I went through being a Retired LEO and trying to explain that very thing, you are going to run into. Hopefully the mods here are not so mindless.

    HQ:fire:
     
  23. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    So are Postal Workers, are they not civilians either? They take an oath too, and it's a governmental agency.

    The legal definition is as pointed out above. When you enter the Armed Forces you temporarily FORFEIT some of your rights as a US Citizen, THAT makes you no longer a civilian. LEOs are subject to the law of the land, just like anyone else and are not without any of the rights guaranteed other civilians. Members of the Armed Forces are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is not nearly as kind as the US Constitution, which they are sworn to defend.
     
  24. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,389
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Members of Congress, members of state legislatures and state governors are all "sworn employees" as are judges, prosecuting attornies and other officials(See Article 6 of the Constitution). Would you deny that they are civilians?
     
  25. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,262
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    There is quite a difference in the amount of authority/power an LEO has in the real world vs. Private citizens or elected officials. In fact, they have more latitude individually to make life and death decisions than soldiers do. I feel that this places them in quite a different category than civilians (at least when they're on duty).

    On that note, this thread has wandered way off topic, and the topic isn't getting anywhere either. I would request that the mods shut it down.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page