How many rounds fired in self defense

if you were involved in a assualt, how many rounds did you actually use

  • 3 rounds were fired

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4 rounds were fired

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5 rounds were fired

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6 rounds were fired

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9 rounds were fired

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've seen Claude's article.

He is a very good person, but I place little or no credence on The Armed Citizen reports. Vey few, if any involve rapidly unfolding violent encounters--in fact in many cases, defenders had time to go elsewhere and retrieve their weapons.

The idea that most people would refrain from deciding to fire until an attacker is almost within arms length, and still stop the attacker successfully, makes no sense. Projectiles do not stop people instantly.

The defenders are invariably successful. The data are select.

The fact that most of the incidents occur within highly defensible property may enter into it. The evidentiary threshold for a reasonable belief that an imminent threat exists is lower.

And while the defenders reportedly always get attaboys, at least some of the reports are of incidents in which legal experts argue that the defenders' actions were likely unlawful. They were lucky.

I have stopped three home invaders and one would-be robber in a tore. No shots fired.

But if someone were to come around a gas pump at five meters per second, I know how unlikely it would be for two shots to hit anything critical, and I know that I would be most unlikely to be able to recognize the fact of an effective stop immediately upon the firing of the shot that stopped. I am trained to fire three to five shots very rapidly after moving. And that certainly may not be adequate.

The few data that have been posted here over the years indicate that if one is attacked, there are as likely to be two or more assailants as one. Common sense supports that. It enters into the risk equation,

Any hit will wound, but it is unlikely to stop. And fatalities are not the objective.
 
Sure ... the data is flawed. It only counts those incidents with positive results.
Just like applying a law enforcement study to armed civilians not in law enforcement.

It’s more of a matter of having little information to work with and doing the best you can with it. There isn’t a whole field of study on the subject.

The greater you feel threatened and the longer it goes on the more the round count is going to go up.
 
There isn’t a whole field of study on the subject.
actually there is, but it is not based on actual data. There are too few incidents, far too little data from each incident, and far too many variables. We only know the end results in a small number of widely dissimilar cases. For those, we know how many shots were fired, but we cannot say how many were necessary, or why.

We have, as objective facts, (1) terminal ballistics data based on surrogate target materials, which tell us how much penetration is enough, (2) shooting data, which tell us which firearms can provide what levels of speed and precision, and (3) data that tell us how quickly a person can close distance.

After that, it is a matter of expert judgement in the area of handgun wounding effectiveness--what internals must be struck to effect a physical stop.

From those things, people can draw informed conclusions.

Now, today's technology could provide us with more--we could simulate the internal damage caused by multiple hits on a moving, twisting, turning target.

Maybe someday people will try it, but I do not see the point. There are so many variables, and so much uncertainty in each estimate, that we would likely not be able to conclude anything meaningful.
 
There are three reasons that I tend doubt the "one to three" figure:
  1. The likelihood that one or two shots fired into a large fast-moving three dimensional target will happen to strike critical body parts hidden within is obviously low.
  2. a defender will not have sufficient time to reasonably assess the effectiveness of initial hits and stop firing, and
  3. for those reasons, defensive shooting trainers generally train students to fire three or more shots very rapidly if shooting is required,

Of note is how many videos I see of shootings. Robberies, home invasions, assaults etc. Someone shoots back. Sometimes the rounds impact, oftentimes they do not. Assailants are likely to run. Legally the confrontation is over. Data suggests the 1-3 rounds to get the confrontation over and the threat stopped. Threat stopped is they are either on the ground (surrender, bleeding, dead) or they run away. Based on selected data, a 2 shot derringer is enough to stop a common attack. And I doubt anyone here does and calls themselves "good."
 
a 2 shot derringer is enough to stop a common attack. And I doubt anyone here does and calls themselves "good."

Someone did. Here's another analogy. Most of the time, when I drive, I get to where I am going without diversion or delay. Should I just put enough gas in my car for that exact mileage?

The average does not always happen. Take a stat course. You need to decide what is a reasonable carry situation planning for an extreme situation somewhere in the tail of critical incident intensity. While 3 shots seems to be the mean, those in know - argue that the cut should be semi with 10 or great rounds and an extra mag. With the newer lower capacity semis (the slim Glocks for instance), two extra mags.
 
If you have a average size car that holds 15 gallons of gas, do you really need one that holds 20? Or when driving your average car, do you carry around Spare Gallons of Gas in your trunk in case you run out?
By the way, I have taken a stats course.
 
If you have a average size car that holds 15 gallons of gas, do you really need one that holds 20?
If refueling were required often in my daily routine, I might want one, but it is really only a matter of convenience.

Self defense is something else again, so it is a bad analogy.

"Average size" has nothing to do with it.

By the way, I have taken a stats course.
If you learned anything at all in it other than definitions, you know that average are of no use in making risk management decisions involving high consequences, and that they are of little use when the available data are limited.
 
Lol, I know there are risk in every single thing in life. Saw lightening come down on a clear sunny day knocked a tree down. Yet, I still go out in the sunshine. Heck, I even go out on rainy days. Just getting in a car to get gas can get ya killed. Any way this Thread has already burned itself out. Time to move on.
Thanks again everyone for your post and and opinions. Again take the results and use them to your own judgement and only as one tool along with many. Have a great and safe day.
 
Last edited:
This poll is over and I am not about to get in this debate. It is not what I intended. I think you might want to start a new thread. And since you are a Moderator, feel free to eliminate that part of my post and rewrite it as you please. Unfortunately, I can not edit at this point.

I have no idea why this has become so common, where people make claims but take it personally when asked for citations. I most typically see that sort of reaction on social media, but I guess it extends to THR now too. It's 2019, and everyone can have their own facts. Should you ask for sources, that's a personal affront and the one who refuses to provide them is "taking the high road."

We live in interesting times.
 
I have no idea why this has become so common, where people make claims but take it personally when asked for citations. I most typically see that sort of reaction on social media, but I guess it extends to THR now too. It's 2019, and everyone can have their own facts.

We live in interesting times.

No it was no personal affront. The poll was over and the statement was taken out of context to the poll. I also very clearly stated that the moderator could rephrase the poll question. I should have been more direct in the asking the question to post on the poll. And as I said, I could not edit any longer. The Poll went south and started to be a debate over the poll statement in the question than the poll itself.
And I posted if you actually read it. "Most statistics show that typically only 1-3 shots are actually fired in the vast amount of common assaults. Maybe true, perhaps not"
I will repeat, I said "Maybe true Maybe not". I never once said it was a fact. So where does this even need for me to offer proof? Proof of What? That was the reason For the Poll LOL. What Citation are you talking about?
The Thread then became a debate of that phrase and nothing to do with the poll. If I could have edited it, I would have and I am asking the moderator to delete that phrase. And look where it is going now.
My question to you is, why has it become so common to try and pick apart every word or phrase and make into a argument? I was speaking in generalities and I truly believe you know that and now trying to make this into something else.

And your High Road Statement? I will not comment. I can see where this is going. Just not worth it.
 
Last edited:
Someone did. Here's another analogy. Most of the time, when I drive, I get to where I am going without diversion or delay. Should I just put enough gas in my car for that exact mileage?

I think I saw those stories. Gas is a good analogy too. You are going from point A to point B. Except there is construction or big accident. Now you have a detour. Statistically probable with however many millions of miles of roads in the US alone. Statistically attacks are one on one. Monkey wrench in the equation: 3 attackers. And you have a derringer. Oops. Same thought process.

Overseas, chance of attack on our BFE (bumb something Egypt) base was HIGH. Chance of being overrun was ridiculously high. We had a calendar of who our nearest "on call" rotary wing aircraft for our sector was in case things got super hairy. I barely unpacked anything in case we had to evacuate in 15 minutes or less. Some of us were issued incendiary grenades to destroy sensitive equipment. And suicide grenades for ourselves. On 99% of bases I went to, you walked around with an empty chamber. There, you wouldn't dare to.

TLDR version, I didn't even go to the shower without 15+1 in my M9. Thank the internet for shoulder holsters. Not running to the shower I carried 2 spare magazines with 15 each.
 
Gas is a good analogy too.
I don't think that's true, for conventional motoring. One can refuel, if necessary, without being killed.

Statistically attacks are one on one.
"Statistically"? Are you referring to the mode, or to a rounded mean?

What is your basis for that assertion?

We have discussed this before many times. I am only aware of two small datasets, bot from Tennessee. In each, if one were attacked, one would be just about as likely to be attacked by two or more assailants as by one.

And thingk about it: how many evil-doers would want to risk acing alone if he or she could have a partner to help observe, distract, and act as back-up?
 
The measure of central tendency isn't what always happen. Could folks get that through their thick heads, to be rather blunt? The distributional shape is equally as important. If you haven't taken a real stat course, spare us saying 'statistically, statistically significant, etc.' You don't understand the terms.
 
"Statistically"? Are you referring to the mode, or to a rounded mean?

Average

What is your basis for that assertion?

Oh about a dozen years worth of experience keeping an eye on defensive gun use. Undergraduate degree in Criminal Justice with a strong research basis in criminal behavior. Key research highlight was getting NIBRS adopted nationwide, albeit slowly.

I don't think that's true, for conventional motoring. One can refuel, if necessary, without being killed.

You did not understand the analogy then.
 
"Average" could refer to a mean value, to a mode, or to a median value.

Of course, the median could not be 1.

Regardless, as GEM points out, none of those would be at all useful for decision making.

Oh about a dozen years worth of experience keeping an eye on defensive gun use. Undergraduate degree in Criminal Justice with a strong research basis in criminal behavior. Key research highlight was getting NIBRS adopted nationwide, albeit slowly.
Describing what you have been doing does not substantiate the number.

Again, the only two data sets that have been posted here, one of which is from the "Lessons from the Street" study in Memphis, contradict your assertion.

Perhaps you could use your knowledge of criminal behavior to explain to us why you believe that anyone with a choice would risk a one-on-one attack.

You did not understand the analogy then.

You did not understand the analogy then.
No, I do not.

Perhaps you could expand on why you would contend that running out of gasoline and having to refuel would be analogous to not having enough ammunition to keep one or more violent criminal attackers from causing death or serious bodily harm
 
"Average" could refer to a mean value, to a mode, or to a median value.

Have taken lots of statistics courses. Mean has always meant average. Mean can have the same value as mode or median, but still be the mean.

Describing what you have been doing does not substantiate the number.
You asked.

Again, the only two data sets that have been posted here, one of which is from the "Lessons from the Street" study in Memphis, contradict your assertion.

So let me see if I understand your point. A study, that looks at crime numbers says I am supposedly wrong. But I have punched the actual data into the databases, that the study analyzes. I would use another analogy here to describe how ridiculous that sounds, but you didn't understand the last one.
 
The mean alone is meaningless for decision making. One has to know the distribution. That's why modern data displays have moved to box plots, confidence intervals and other methods of understanding the occurrence of events. Having taught stat from intro to multivariate from 1975 on till retirement a few years ago, we stressed more than the mean. The mean fascinates the gun world, who seems not to know what it really means.

You have to know the distribution shape (which by the way may be multivariate) to decide a criterion cut off based on the central tendency, spread and where in the tails of the distribution you decide your decision criteria vs. the risk for the various decision errors that can occur and impact of these various errors types.
 
Is this another, "I carry a revolver and I feel the need to validate my decision based on proving to you that its all I will ever need" post? Fantastic, if you want to base your carry options on the statistical analysis of potential snow crab invasions, that's fine too.

People should carry what they shoot well, a chambering that is effective yet again, they shoot well, and has as many rounds as you can carry, and you shoot well. :thumbup:
My pistol was a .22 semi auto Colt Huntsman. It was all I owned and could afford at the time.
In those days, a romantic date consisted of dollar draft beers and 25 cent hard boiled eggs at the Hofbrau near campus
 
Referencing : Fighting Smarter A Practical Guide For Surviving Violent Confrontations by Tom Givens, Chapter 13 Training Priorities. Observations on sixty of his student's involved in gun fights along with FBI and DEA. Average distances and number of rounds fired. The round counts fired are relatively low.
 
Referencing : Fighting Smarter A Practical Guide For Surviving Violent Confrontations by Tom Givens, Chapter 13 Training Priorities. Observations on sixty of his student's involved in gun fights along with FBI and DEA. Average distances and number of rounds fired. The round counts fired are relatively low.

Yes.

And Tom Givens recommends carrying a "real gun"--which, in his context, does not include a five shot revolver.
 
Lol, got news for Tom, a five shot revolver is very real.
I doubt that there is anything substantive that you can tell Tom. He was speaking figuratively.

I will agree with the round count.
Good. Now, what Tom said was, in the sixty-plus incidents analyzed, the average number of rounds fired was (IIRC) 3.1 rounds. He went on to point out that it was obvious that no one fired 3.1 rounds.

He then urged against selecting a five shot revolver.

If you want to discuss it with him, attend a class, and ask about it. I have.

One more time, averages are less than useful in decision making, forecasting, risk analysis, planning, or anything else. One needs to know the distribution.

But even that won't do it, unless the data sample is sufficiently large. Tom showed us all of his data, but there were far, far too few incidents to account for even a small number of the relevant variables.
 
Good post, Tom makes the point about time in the fight. As said before, no matter how many opponents you are out of the fight with the 'lethal pause' (got that from of Live's posts of court decisions supporting higher cap mags), much quicker with a smaller cap gun.

I've trained quite a bit with Tom, great teacher. His use for the smaller cap guns are for bugs. IIRC, he has one as an ankle carry. He used to carry a 1911 but as ammo changed and tech changed, moved up to a Glock (higher cap - oh, my).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top