Three Shots or Less for Self-Defense

[Timthinker]

During the past few years, I have heard that most self-defense situations are resolved with three shots or less being fired. Is this true? Where did this statistic originate? Have any of our members thought about it before? These are the questions I have pondered recently. Hopefully, some of our memebers can answer it.


Timthinker

 

[MICHAEL T]

Only true of civilans shooting. Police fire enough to start a war and most miss. But their pros.
I belive the 3 shot is a advertage of all the shots fired in reported SD shootings. same with time and distance. Belive the FBI collected the information

 

[Timthinker]

Yes, I am refering to civilian self-defense situations as you correctly noted. I suspected this data might have originated from the FBI, but I am not sure. Hopefully, some of our members have some detailed info about this. I also wonder how old that statistic is. Thanks for your comment.


Timthinker

 

[kermit315]

not sure how old the figure is, but I bet it takes into account the bad guys that s#(% their pants and run at the sound of gunfire coming at them, and after the third shot are far enough away that the originator of the fire just stops. then their are the guys that will run through a whole magazine or cylinder till the gun clicks, and the lucky ones that can get the job done with one shot. all that added and divided becomes either 2.992938909, or 3.000001 and got turned into 3.

 

[sailortoo]

Three shots or?

Pure guess - Pure guess. Had to say that, because that is what I am doing. I would say that the greater number of incidences of (ciivlian) confrontations are generally agreed to end with "showing", not shooting. In a statistical approach, you could have a 15 round shoot for one incident , and zero shots (only showing your weapon) for 4 more, equals 3 rounds per incident. It is like the always used "life expectancy equals x# years, but that is an average of births/deaths. Where childhood deaths are rampant, you have a short average life span, but those that make it to adulthood, may well live to a ripe old age. Hard to make a clean, clear case for any "average number" of shots fired. I would sure carry more than three rounds!
sailortoo

 

[SomeKid]

sailor,

That is why it is a good idea to look for a mean, median, and mode. It would give you a MUCH more accurate picture. Sadly, most journalists probably have no idea what any of those three are, and are unlikely to ever be so clear.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

I heard about the 3 shots, 3 seconds, and 3 feet in the class I took to get my concealed firearms permit.


sailortoo,

I think that's a good point you make. They don't really say if that number is for gun fights, or self-defense situations altogether. When they say that life-expectancy was 25 years during whatever part of ancient history, I always wonder what the average life-expectancy was for those who lived to be at least 10.


Knowing the mean, median, and mode are useful. However, even if we had a mean, median, and mode, that still wouldn't necessarily let us know all what's going on. If that number includes all self-defense situations, and not just gun fights where there's actual shots fired, then it could be bi-modal, meaning that there could be a mode for both situations: one for when no shots are fired and then another mode statistic for when shots are fired. Whichever mode has more numbers wins. So if there are more self-defense situations where no shots are fired (assuming this 3 shots includes everything), then the mode would represent that side of it more. It would be useful to know what the target population is that they're sampling.

 

[BlackBearME]

mean, median, and mode.... most journalists probably have no idea what any of those three are.

Or most people, for that matter. If they're anything like my fiancee, once they take the test in school, unless it's a direct part of their life everyday, it's out of their head.

This, incidentally, is why "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" is so successful. The material is fresh in the minds of the Fifth Graders, while is 15-30+ years gone for most of the contestants.

Anyway, on topic: I have seen that statistic around, and it makes sense. It depends largely on the wording of the study itself, though. If the study includes scenarios where a gun is involved but no shots are fired, then sailtoo's scenario makes sense.

I don't foresee (and hope to never be in) a scenario where you need more than 3 shots (at least with only one threat), but I carry 17 rounds anyway. Better to have and not need, and all that.

 

[BlackBearME]

Wow, GuyWithQuestions, apparently I type too slow. But agree with what you said.

I'm not delving anymore into it, though, because statistics hurts my head. You can make the numbers do whatever you want.

 

[SomeKid]

True, knowing the 3 M's would not promise accuracy, unbiased work, and completeness, however it would be helpful.

Using sailor's scenario, you would have a Mean of 3, a mode of 0 and a median of 0. With those numbers it would become easy to see that the majority of self-defense cases involved less than three shots fired. Inf act, it would be obvious that in at least 50% of the cases, no shots were fired. Could this be twisted? Certainly. However, I do think that having more information beats having less.

 

[sailortoo]

Three shots or?

One other factor that is all important in a statistical sense - how many cases where no shots are fired get reported to any recording agency? If there is no law enforcement response, or no call for such, there is no actual record to add to the statistical base. I have no idea what that number would amount to, but it could be significant enough to alter the numbers outcome. Seems the Lotte (sp?) study used estimates, just because of this factor.
sailortoo

Semper Paratus (also)

 

[Soybomb]

I've heard it alot and never seen an actual citation.

Either way if its true, do you care? The statistics say you'll probably never need a concealed weapon. If you're already having a bad enough day to need a gun, I'd just go on and assume I might be the unlucky guy who needs more than the average. After seeing actual videos of guns being used for self defense I also have to appreciate how fast shots are fired and how fast a person might find themselves empty. Ymmv and all that.

 

[Ala Dan]

I think there must be many determining factors, as to how many shots
it takes to put down a perp. Number of assailants, range and location of
a possible attack, cover, avenues of escape, etc. all have to be of some
consideration. Its long been maintained, that attacks usually occur within
a 21 foot radius of the potential victim. At that distance, even if attacked
by a knife wielding thug; you are more than likely going to get stuck or
worst, cut. Whether your brain can react, and send a signal that this
threat is real and needs to be dealt with using deadly physical force
differs from person to person. Persons who train on a regular basis
probably could end the threat with three shots or less; but in todays
society, the untrained licensed CCW civilians might require many more
shots with a reload in between~?

 

[76shuvlinoff]

I heard about the 3 shots, 3 seconds, and 3 feet in the class I took to get my concealed firearms permit.

Could be ccw class myth or legend but that's where I heard it too.

 

[Jeff22]

citizen self-defense

The FBI does notcollect data on self-defense shootings involving the citizenry.

They collect data on incidents involving a fatal injury to a cop -- called the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED AND ASSAULTED (LEOKA) which is published annually and available online at:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#leoka

Data on the dynamics of confrontation involving citizens acting in a self-defense capacity is, unfortunately, anecdotal.

Tom Givens at Rangemaster in Memphis, Tn. has had quite a few students with CCW permits involved in shooting incidents, and may have some conclusions drawn from their experiences.

 

[OhioPaints]

According to Kleck, in most cases where a firearm is used for self defense, NO shots are fired. He claims that the mere presence of a firearm defuses the situation. Personally, I like that concept since it saves us a lot of legal hassles

Either way if its true, do you care?

Agreed except it does give me an idea of how many rounds I need to carry. Personally, I don't think I have a need for a high cap pistol and extra magazines, I feel 6-8 rounds is adequate for 99.9999% of any situation I am likely to encounter (fortunately I am able to avoid high crime areas.)

Ken

 

[iamkris]

I have no doubt that the "3 shots" stat is correct.

Then again, I don't think it is a good argument for having a gun with 3 shots (or 4, or 5 or 6...). You only have to look at examples like the Colorado church shooting and Jeanne Assam...didn't she start advancing, verbalizing and shooting until the attacker ceased his carnage?

 

[sniper5]

Big diff in civilian vs. LEO shoots is mindset. LEO's are obligated to be the pursuer to take the person into custody/eliminate the threat to society. Civilians are, or should be (check with any attorney you'd like) be using their weapon only to facilitate escape (of yourself or others) from a situation not of your own making. Given that it is in the interest of both parties in civilian shoots to break off the fight as soon as possible in the interest of survival it seems reasonable that fewer rounds, if any, will be expended.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Zach S]

I heard about the 3 shots, 3 seconds, and 3 feet in the class I took to get my concealed firearms permit.

I heard three yards. I'd feel much better at three yards than three feet, but either one is too close for comfort.

 

[XDKingslayer]

I've also heard the Rules of 3 tossed around. Most defensive shootings take on average of 3 shots, are within 3 yards, lasing about 3 seconds.

I don't put any weight into it, but I can see it being about right.

 

[Travis Lee]

If that moment comes.... the fight will not be what "statistics" indicate, and it will not be what you expect; the fight will be what it is.

You may be confronted with a squirrely meth head, or two hard-cases straight from prison, or 8 drunks who think your jacket looks gay....

You don't get to choose.

You DO get to choose the equipment, and ammunition you carry that day. And you do get to choose scenarios you train for and consider in your mind.

I've read posts by people who've been in gunfights, not one has said, "thank goodness I only had 5 shots!"

--Travis--

 

[Rexster]

I recently took a robberty report from a kid who was up against FIVE bad guys, with at least one shotgun and one handgun being fired at him, and they approached him from different angles, as if communicating with mobile phones or radios. (They seemed to want his Ipod.) Being a minor, he could not legally carry a handgun, and could only run away and jump fences, but keep in mind this was five armed robbers, with one shotgun blast and multiple pistol shots being heard by the victim and witnesses. Two blocks from this location, I took another robbery report from a couple, who were robbed by two bad guys, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun. They elected to give up their property, and were forunately not hurt. This was a "good" neighborhood, and very near where I lived until recently. This may seem off-topic, but just in case anyone is thinking of using the two-point-something stats to justify an inadequte weapon, or inadequate training, just keep in mind that stats don't mean much when it is your turn at the plate.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

How's that go again?

.......lies, damn lies, and statistics????

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Statistically, the 3 shots is correct. But since any gunfight is a statistical aberration, how can any of them be "average?" You need to be prepared for all possible variations.

 

[OhioPaints]

Statistically, the 3 shots is correct. But since any gunfight is a statistical aberration, how can any of them be "average?" You need to be prepared for all possible variations.

One simply cannot be "prepared for all possible variations", we cannot employ an entire marine squad to go with us all the time. Let's face facts, even the Secret Service has failed a few times.

Sure, there is a possibility that I might run into a whole gang of armed crack heads. Probably about a one in a billion chance. The chances of my ever needing my gun are probably somewhere between 1:100 and 1:1000. And as Kleck claims, most of the time a firearm is used successfully in self defense, it is never fired.

As for the recent church shooting, she was not in a typical self defense scenario. She was a volunteer armed security person in an environment that had received threats. A little different scenario than my planned trip to a rural Walmart.

Ken