Untrained gun users ineffective at self-defence, US study finds - apparently not....

[danez71]

What this thread is becoming is that all the supporting work done that backs this guy up isn't valid and accepted because some guy on the net hasn't done it himself.


Thanks Jeff and Kleenbore for your efforts here... and massad too for weighing in with your expert, peer accepted, 1st hand knowledge.

 

[Kleanbore]

Might I respectfully suggest that people with limited knowledge and experience who argue about published "studies" with an editorial slant just waste of time and effort.

Those who are really interested in the subject should do three things:

1. Read Deadly Force--Understanding Your Right to Self Defense, by Massad Ayoob; better yet, attend MAG 20
2. Attend at least one good defensive pistol shooting training session
3. Spend sometime in one of the simulators of the kind discussed in the article at hand here, going through as many different relevant scenarios as possible; they can be found at Gander Mountain Academy locations and in other places; FoF exercises with simunitions would be helpful too

Then--when one has learned what the law considers justified, what someone with a defensive firearm can actually do in a a circumstance resembling an ambush, and what can really be expected to happen in different kinds of defensive encounters--one should be better equipped to discuss the subject knowledgeably.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

massad ayoob: Kleanbore and Jeff are telling you straight. Some folks don't realize just who the "peers" in "peer review" encompass. The courts looks strongly, under the Daubert standard, at what principles are accepted and widely used IN THE FIELD, not just treatises in scientific journals.

The suddenly-turning aggressor who is hit in the back by a shot intended for his front as he attacked, is well understood in such circles as police academies, homicide investigation training, the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. I've been demonstrating it both live and on video in homicide trials since Florida v. Mary Menucci Hopkin in the 1980s.

Dennis Tueller's work has been peer-accepted in law enforcement, security, and self-defense training since 1983. It has been proven countless thousands of times and is absolutely court acceptable. Similarly, Lewinski's work is in wide use "in the field," and demonstrably valid.

Wow. If this is the Massad Ayoob who's articles I've read for years it's an honor to have you posting in this thread.


I was reading your stuff before I got into law enforcement. Thanks for all of your contributions.

 

[swopjan]

Kleanbore and Jeff are telling you straight. Some folks don't realize just who the "peers" in "peer review" encompass. The courts looks strongly, under the Daubert standard, at what principles are accepted and widely used IN THE FIELD, not just treatises in scientific journals.

I understand perfectly. What I am taking issue with is the premise that it's the best way there is based on limited data, and the rigorous defense of the methodology because 'that's the way it is.'

Mr. White and Kleanbore are quite adamant that peer-review by law enforcement is sufficiently exhaustive and unbiased, but also quite adamant that scrutiny of this practice is unfounded based on the lack of data of non-justified or justified-but-incorrect killings. However, law enforcement are the ones who could collectively provide this data, and are the ones who benefit most from the current research being accepted at face value because they gain nothing from actually proving it, but would have to change principles and training and be less shielded from liability if any of the doctrine is found to be flawed.

Pardon me if I dismiss your arguments as the rantings of a biased person with an agenda. If you actually believe the "hands up/don't shoot" agenda, that's your business but I will not waste another electron discussing it with you.

You can show me how many shootings are okay, and you can point to Dr. Lewinski's and Massad Ayoob's research, among others, as saving officer's lives. That's great, that's part of how it should be.

What you cannot show me is how many shootings are not okay as a result of anything whatsoever.

Also, your attempt to tie me to the 'hands up/don't shoot' protestors is completely ridiculous. They assert police are wrongly shooting too many people. I am asserting that, by failing to record the numbers and by this shouting down of any scrutiny of their methodology by outside sources, police are obscuring how many people are wrongly being shot.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by swopjan:

What I am taking issue with is the premise that it's the best way there is based on limited data, and the rigorous defense of the methodology because 'that's the way it is.'

Do not make the mistake of confusing the amount of data in terms of the number of actual incidents about which everything is known with the amount of knowledge available. The latter includes measurements and results from tests, simulation, physiological factors, FoF training and other science; and for the purpose of judging what an individual, officer or civilian, should properly do in terms of the prudent and lawful use of force, it is in most ways very sufficient indeed.

Mr. White and Kleanbore are quite adamant that peer-review by law enforcement is sufficiently exhaustive and unbiased, but also quite adamant that scrutiny of this practice is unfounded based on the lack of data of non-justified or justified-but-incorrect killings.

Poppycock. Review and evaluation extends far beyond law enforcement, and into the realms of prosecutors, defense attorneys, civil plaintiffs, and the many experts consulted by the foregoing.

However, law enforcement are the ones who could collectively provide this data, and are the ones who benefit most from the current research being accepted at face value because they gain nothing from actually proving it, but would have to change principles and training and be less shielded from liability if any of the doctrine is found to be flawed.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

You can show me how many shootings are okay, and you can point to Dr. Lewinski's and Massad Ayoob's research, among others, as saving officer's lives. That's great, that's part of how it should be.

It's not all about "saving officers' lives". It's partly a matter of developing training regimes and procedures that will increase the likelihood of the successful defensive use of force by officers and civilians while minimizing unnecessary injury all around, and partly a matter of developing information that can help investigators and triers of fact in criminal and civil venues determine whether a use of force incident was carried out in the manner in which a reasonable person, knowing what he knew at the time, should have done it.

What you cannot show me is how many shootings are not okay as a result of anything whatsoever.

No one can, no one ever will be, and if one had the numbers, they would tell us absolutely nothing actionable.

Each and every use of force incident involves a large number of factors, most of which can never be known because the incident was not performed on a sound stage and recorded by cameras from multiple vantage points. Only a few facts are known after the fact, and may of those are ambiguous. What one adds to that the fact that there are relatively quite very few use of force incidents in which justification is a real possibility, one will realize the futility of trying to base very much at all on incident data.

 

[JR47]

This IS kind of funny. We read continually about how many people are killed in robberies, hold ups, drive-bys, arguments, and on and on. How many of these shooters have ANY training? How many use a gun that is kept in a "community" location?

Is there a hidden "community" with ranges, instructors, and other teaching facilities that specialize in criminals? If not, what accounts for their success?

Sometimes, to a man with a hammer, every problem ends up looking suspiciously like a nail.

Formal training is nice. Yet, for how many centuries has it actually existed? What happened back when it was just a dream?

Reading common sense information about the use of Lethal Force should be something that all of us should do. I don't think anyone disagrees.

Use of FoF scenarios? Nice, but why would that need to be "required" for a citizen not a an LEO? Same with week-long courses teaching tactical operations.

There are far more citizens who cannot afford to attend these classes. They have less than wonderful jobs, as they often work more than one. They also have responsibilities that keep them local. Like family. THESE are the people who live in sketchy neighborhoods, where bad things happen. THESE are the people who NEED to be armed in many cases. Yet, to hear some on this Board, they are dangerous if armed. To who? What is it in these classes that imbues common sense? From what I've seen, all too often they pander to the "Spec-Ops" attitude, and NOT common sense.

Yet, in all of this, those criminals, using borrowed guns, keep right on killing. Using the logic presented in all too many posts, they, the criminals should miss at contact distance, if not shooting themselves at the same time.

There's a middle territory in all of this. It's sad to see it ignored.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JR47:

This IS kind of funny. We read continually about how many people are killed in robberies, hold ups, drive-bys, arguments, and on and on. How many of these shooters have ANY training?

The question has come up more than infrequently, and while one may believe, probably without basis, that crooks with frames have little or no training, we have seen otherwise.

I'm not going to take the time to look for it right now, but there is a report posted somewhere on the board that tells that, among persons in prisoned for shooting incidents with police officers, many of them have considerably more firearms experience than do most people.

Use of FoF scenarios? Nice, but why would that need to be "required" for a citizen not a an LEO?

I don't see a need to require that. I did say that people should avail themselves of it before claiming expertise in the subjects of, for example, whether police training is properly designed, or police policies are appropriate.

Same with week-long courses teaching tactical operations.

Agree , but a one or two day course in defensive pistol shooting could prove the best investment that one ever makes. It is not at all like target shooting at the square range.

Yet, in all of this, those criminals, using borrowed guns, keep right on killing. Using the logic presented in all too many posts, they, the criminals should miss at contact distance, if not shooting themselves at the same time.

You are again assuming that criminals have little or no gun handling expertise.

Also understand that the crook is not worried about justification, or about when it is lawful to draw and when it is not, or about what constitutes justification, or about how to move to shoot with an effective backstop, or how to avoid collateral injury. But the lawful defender has to be concerned with all of those things.

 

[Kleanbore]

Here It Is....

The report is part of a series of long investigations into fatal and nonfatal attacks on POs by the FBI team of Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, clinical forensic psychologist, and Ed Davis, criminal investigative instructor, both with the Bureau’s Behavioral Science Unit, and Charles Miller III, coordinator of the LEOs Killed and Assaulted program.

The data sample is extremely small.

Some highlights:

Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military.

More than 80% "regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year," the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and "street corners in known drug-trafficking areas."

Ten of these "street combat veterans," all from "inner-city, drug-trafficking environments," had taken part in 5 or more "criminal firefight experiences" in their lifetime.

Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, "claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights," the study says.

"They practice getting the gun out and using it," Davis explained. "They shoot for effect." Or as one of the offenders put it: "[W]e're not working with no marksmanship... We just putting it in your direction, you know... It don't matter... as long as it's gonna hit you…if it's up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever... Once I squeeze and you fall, then... if I want to execute you, then I could go from there."

More often than the officers they attacked, offenders delivered at least some rounds on target in their encounters. Nearly 70% of assailants were successful in that regard with handguns, compared to about 40% of the victim officers, the study found. (Efforts of offenders and officers to get on target were considered successful if any rounds struck, regardless of the number fired.)

Davis speculated that the offenders might have had an advantage because in all but 3 cases they fired first, usually catching the officer by surprise. Indeed, the report points out, "10 of the total victim officers had been wounded [and thus impaired] before they returned gunfire at their attackers."​

http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary/comm_cop_killers.asp

 

[JR47]

Exactly, the data sample is miniscule compared to the carnage perpetrated upon citizens. I would also be willing to bet that "military" training has fallen markedly since the end of the draft.

We also read stories of criminals who used a gun with only the ammunition they found in it. Or who used inappropriate ammunition in their guns, like using .380 rounds in a 9mm pistol.

I somehow doubt that there are many big city gang-bangers who practice at a local range, as well. Coming from the D.C. area, the local Maryland ranges refused to let anyone with a D.C. license rent a gun. There were zero ranges in D.C. that were public. Virginia ranges had the same restriction. Yet, it was patently obvious that criminals in D.C. were killing at record-breaking rates.

I had some experience with the intelligence of such shooters. A police officer friend and I were leaving a gravel pit, where I had written permission to shoot, one morning. Off of the property, we heard gun-fire. Investigation showed us two men, standing alongside I-95, and firing into an abandoned car. They were shooting into the car from further off-road, shooting into the car with the road as a back-stop!! On-Duty Officers found that BOTH were convicted felons, and that the gun was stolen. Worse, from 10 feet away, they had missed an entire late 70's Ford full-size Galaxy!!

There are as many stories of the lack of ability in the use of guns as there are "studies" using miniscule numbers.

We can see every day just how many citizens criminals manage to kill. Yet, there isn't an actual study of a significant population of criminals that reveals proficiant marksmanship training.

 

[Tommygunn]

Exactly, the data sample is miniscule compared to the carnage perpetrated upon citizens. I would also be willing to bet that "military" training has fallen markedly since the end of the draft.
We also read stories of criminals who used a gun with only the ammunition they found in it. Or who used inappropriate ammunition in their guns, like using .380 rounds in a 9mm pistol.

I somehow doubt that there are many big city gang-bangers who practice at a local range, as well. Coming from the D.C. area, the local Maryland ranges refused to let anyone with a D.C. license rent a gun. There were zero ranges in D.C. that were public. Virginia ranges had the same restriction. Yet, it was patently obvious that criminals in D.C. were killing at record-breaking rates.

I had some experience with the intelligence of such shooters. A police officer friend and I were leaving a gravel pit, where I had written permission to shoot, one morning. Off of the property, we heard gun-fire. Investigation showed us two men, standing alongside I-95, and firing into an abandoned car. They were shooting into the car from further off-road, shooting into the car with the road as a back-stop!! On-Duty Officers found that BOTH were convicted felons, and that the gun was stolen. Worse, from 10 feet away, they had missed an entire late 70's Ford full-size Galaxy!!

There are as many stories of the lack of ability in the use of guns as there are "studies" using miniscule numbers.

We can see every day just how many citizens criminals manage to kill. Yet, there isn't an actual study of a significant population of criminals that reveals proficiant marksmanship training.

What I've ... "heard:" Over the past fifteen years, since we have become involved in the "War Against Terror," many gangs have selected their younger, arrest-free members into the military to learn aggressive military tactics, and in some cases, even to steal weapons.
These criminals ... or perhaps I should say "future" criminals or "criminals-in-training" come back just as nasty as the other gang members plus they come with experience in military tactics that they can teach to other gang members, making them that much more effective.

"Yet, there isn't an actual study of a significant population of criminals that reveals proficiant marksmanship training."

No?
I'm not saying by any means that gang membership is over-flowing with ex-military members who are expert marksmen, but I think it IS a problem that we will be facing very soon, and in some places we may be facing it already.
We can't just assume that every gang-banger carries a 9mm. Keltec loaded with a .380 inserted in the magazine backwards.....any more.

 

[Pushrod]

It doesn't matter one bit what any study finds. This is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. All restrictions and conditions should be null and void.

 

[MEHavey]

..."should" be...

aaaahhh.... There's the rub.


To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shufflel’d off this mortall coile,

 

[Tommygunn]

It doesn't matter one bit what any study finds. This is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. All restrictions and conditions should be null and void.

You don't have to convince me of that.
You have to convince the Feinsteins, Schumers, Obamas, Boxers, Bloombergs, et al, of that.

Studies remain interesting mainly in what they can reveal to us about how society works .... sometimes.

 

[JR47]

Somehow, I doubt that many "gangs" that consist of street-corner assassins have the wherewithal to think far enough ahead to send people into the military. More than likely, they are modeling their efforts after the Zetas, who use military personnel corrupted by money to become enforcers.

To be quite frank, your average gang banger, or gang-banger in training, isn't the type of person who enlists, or survives through boot camp.

I'd also like to know the date of that study, please. I'm also curious how, out of tens of thousands of prisoners, they could only find such a tiny group to use.

 

[Pushrod]

You don't have to convince me of that.
You have to convince the Feinsteins, Schumers, Obamas, Boxers, Bloombergs, et al, of that.

Studies remain interesting mainly in what they can reveal to us about how society works .... sometimes.

The thing with many if not most of these type of studies, Tommygunn, (and I know you and most others on here know this) is that they can be manipulated to a pre-determined outcome.

Now a peer-reviewed study I'll have a little more faith in, but will still verify if possible.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'd also like to know the date of that study, please. I'm also curious how, out of tens of thousands of prisoners, they could only find such a tiny group to use.

A while back...

"Could only find"? Come now. They identified a sample population, selected a subset of that sample for interview, performed the interviews, compiled the data, and prepared the report.

Those things take time, and time is money. Studies of that kind are performed within a limited budget, and that was only one aspect of the overall investigation.

I would not draw any conclusions about "your average gangbanger" based on anyone's imagination. He may be a deserter from the Mexican Army; a veteran of the sand-box; a veteran of drug wars in South America; police academy cadet who didn't make the grade; or a gun guy from the boondocks who got involved in the drug business.

 

[larbear]

The one thing that is different from LEO and civilians is that LEO have a Use of Force model that they have to adhere too. Civilians are not hampered by agency policy or oversite committees. A civilian shooting is justified or not , LEO has a that plus a whole gambet to run after the event.
Most LEO do their qualifications and that is all the shooting they do, unless they recreationally shoot.

 

[Tommygunn]

The thing with many if not most of these type of studies, Tommygunn, (and I know you and most others on here know this) is that they can be manipulated to a pre-determined outcome.

Now a peer-reviewed study I'll have a little more faith in, but will still verify if possible.

Yup, they can certainly be manipulated -- and even that can tell us something about how our society works, when we're savvy enough to figure out the deception.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by larbear:

The one thing that is different from LEO and civilians is that LEO have a Use of Force model that they have to adhere too.

Underlying that factor is the real difference, the fact that a law enforcement officer has a duty to enforce the law. The civilian is expected to avoid, disengage, or deescalate, if not to actually retreat.

The law enforcement officer mat also draw a firearm in certain circumstances in which a civilian may not.

Civilians are not hampered by agency policy or oversite committees. A civilian shooting is justified or not , LEO has a that plus a whole gambet to run after the event.

In both cases, the question of justification will come down not only to what individual knew at the time, but also to what the individual actually did.

 

[JR47]

The point that the "study" was done "a while back" isn't helpful. Would conclusions about military training during the time of the Draft perhaps sway the numbers? Especially if that training was in Boot Camp, while they finished out their enlistment working on logistics. For many years, such enlistees qualified MAYBE once a year, if then.

Excusing a sub-standard sampling as a "budgetary" issue isn't science, it's politics. That "study" is useless for anything but talking about a statistical sample of 43 people out of literally hundreds of thousands. Seems more like manipulation than science.

It would appear that, other than the red herring of the FBI "study" of a meaninglessly tiny group, we have no statistics to actually back up the premise that criminals are trained, or even practiced in the use of the weapons they possess.

I would also point out that there are also many veterans in the CC community. Using the standards set by that tiny study, that would leave them at least as well qualified as the criminals. As to the average of 23 practices annually, there is no mention of how many rounds were fired, or even if they were targeting anything. Does shooting into the sir count as practice in such a study?

Yet, the fact remains that criminals aren't regularly visiting ranges, nor are they conducting actual training. Yet, they still manage to hit. On the other hand, so, according to magazines like the American Rifleman, or SWAT, do those "untrained" citizens. More and more today, it seems.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JR47:

The point that the "study" was done "a while back" isn't helpful.

Why so?

Would conclusions about military training during the time of the Draft perhaps sway the numbers?

Most probably not. The study came out in 2006. The draft was ended in 1973, but the numbers of people drafted each year fell precipitously after 1969.

Excusing a sub-standard sampling as a "budgetary" issue isn't science, it's politics.

It is clear that you know little or nothing about how investigations such as that one are designed, proposed, authorized, budgeted, conducted, and/or approved for release.

What is your basis for describing the study as having been based on "a sub-standard sampling"?

What kind of "politics" do you suspect?

That "study" is useless for anything but talking about a statistical sample of 43 people out of literally hundreds of thousands. Seems more like manipulation than science.

Had the plan for the study been challenged as "useless for anything but talking about a statistical sample of 43 people", it would not have been approved.

"Hundreds of thousands"? Get real. In the last ten years there have been 15,000 officers injured.

It would appear that, other than the red herring of the FBI "study" of a meaninglessly tiny group,...

"Red herring"? What is it that leads you to asset that the report was intended to mislead or distract?

"Meaningless"? Well, it tells us something about a scientifically chosen sample, however small.

What sample size do you think would be appropriate? How did you come up with your number?

I would also point out that there are also many veterans in the CC community. Using the standards set by that tiny study, that would leave them at least as well qualified as the criminals.

Have 40% of the CCW carriers received formal training? Do 80% practice regularly? Possible, but I really doubt it.

And irrelevant, anyway.

Yet, the fact remains that criminals aren't regularly visiting ranges,...

Did you miss "informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and "street corners in known drug-trafficking areas"?

Yet, they still manage to hit. On the other hand, so, according to magazines like the American Rifleman, or SWAT, do those "untrained" citizens. More and more today, it seems.

Keep in mind that those American Rifleman reports, unlike the FBI study, are limited almost entirely to accounts of incident in which the defenders succeed.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

These jerks don't permit a reply. Right off the top I can think of at least two car jackings stopped by firearms owner with concealed carry permit, an Uber driver and one other gentleman who stopped mass shootings.

There is no doubt that training would increase efficiency, though.

A favorite morning radio show had a regular feature called "Emperical Weather Report" that involved listeners poking thier heads out the door to see what the actual weather was in contrast to news weather reports. The people doing this "study" should do the same.

 

[Kleanbore]

Right off the top I can think of at least two car jackings stopped by firearms owner with concealed carry permit, an Uber driver and one other gentleman who stopped mass shootings.

Yes, and we hear of many others in the news.