Self Defense Statistics (Or Lack Of Them) For The Armed Citizen

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Hangingrock: Knowing I should be serious about this subject but apparently this is a debate to what end?

How about the selection of defensive armaments and accoutrements?

The discussion is about whether there are adequate actual statistical data to support such a decision, about why there are not, and about how one might make such a decision in the absence of same.

 

[Fred Fuller]

In the gap imposed by a lack of broadly applicable statistics relating to the armed citizen, can we work on a list of things that we do broadly agree on?

- Carrying any pistol in any caliber is better than not carrying a pistol at all, where/when it's legal to do so
- Any pistol that you're carrying is better than the 'better' pistol that you left at home in the gun safe
- Odds are on any given day you won't need to draw your pistol, that if you do need to draw you won't have to fire, that if you do have to fire you won't be forced to fire a large number of shots, that you won't need to reload in that engagement, that the range will be relatively short, that the time involved will be relatively short, that handguns are not death rays since the majority of people shot with a handgun survive, and that despite all the odds of this or that, in the end its the stakes that really matter
- Given the stakes, it's a reasonable thing to to to prepare oneself psychologically and physically through education, training and practice to the best degree possible in the event it's ever necessary to use a firearm or any other weapon in self defense (mindset, skillset, toolset)
- ADEE is a better approach for the armed citizen than AOJ-P
- Bad guys study and practice too, and they don't wear signs that say BAD GUY. An important part of the necessary skillset for an armed citizen is the ability to identify and avoid potential trouble before it gets into contact range, if possible

Anyone care to add to the list, or discount anything on the list?
=====

ETA: It's not just here, this kind of discussion is happening all over...

http://www.balloongoesup.com/blog/2012/03/a-9mm-victory-in-the-caliber-wars/
A 9mm victory in the caliber wars
March 16, 2012 | Filed under: Theory,Training

 

[Loosedhorse]

ADEE is a better approach for the armed citizen than AOJ-P

I take it, "avoid, de-escalate, escape, evade" and "preclusion"? (AOJ I'm sure about.)

I think you're speaking to the mindset of "shoot as soon as it's legally permissable" vs "shoot if there is no safe retreat option and no safe lesser force option (when there is threat to life and limb)." If so, I agree on which is "better", but I'm not sure there's much difference in a dark alley. And of course, we should be aware of both.

For defense at home, I hear more varied opinions. If I'm on my lawn, and can safely "retreat" into my house behind a locked door, should I? If I'm in my house, and can safely "retreat" into my bedroom behind a locked door, should I? Such retreats are usually not legally required because of Castle Laws...but should we do them anyway? ("Safely" is meant as not just safe for you but any "exposed" family members.)

And of course, for our folks from TX, if a guy is about to exit your premises with your property at night, let him go instead of shooting him?

Obviously, there are lots of aspects to those answers. I wonder if we can define the tactical ones.

 

[Kleanbore]

That's a great list.

Might I suggest adding one item:

-Given a choice, it is preferable to carry a reliable pistol with which one has practiced hitting targets effectively, and to carry it in a manner that makes it easy to access rapidly.

There are none that I would remove or edit.

 

[Fred Fuller]

For more on ADEE, see http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm . Those are just the skeletal outlines of a lecture than ran about two hours IIRC, with numerous photographs. I was fortunate enough to hear the actual lecture in Titusville, FL.

The primary difference between ADEE and AOJ that Mr. Gochenour points out is that the AOJ model is more suited to the sworn LEO, who is required to respond and has no option to back away. The armed citizen has no sworn duty to respond and does have the option of retreat when and where it is feasible to do so.

I like the way Rory Miller puts it... It is better to avoid than to run; better to run than to de-escalate; better to de-escalate than to fight; better to fight than to die. The very essence of self-defense is a thin list of things that might get you out alive when you are already screwed. - from Meditations on Violence http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594391181...ning.com/Site//Home_files/widget1_markup.html

What we are attempting here as far as I can tell is a form of reality check, or at least an attempt at defining the reality we're trying to check. The variables are essentially infinite. The background, training and experiences of the people trying to do the defining and checking are also quite varied. So different people are trying to measure different things from differing points of view. No wonder it's difficult if not impossible.

Miller addressed all that from the point of martial arts this week in a blog entry at http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2012/03/rarefied-reality-checks.html . Whether we're talking about calibers and bullets or hand to gland, many of the same kinds of issues arise. We are all pretty much self-referencing to one degree or another. It's human nature to take comfort in what we "know," but how well does it really work when we try to impose our "knowing" on someone else who "knows" something different? And are we really doing them a favor when we try?

Miller continues to impress me as time goes on...

 

[Loosedhorse]

The armed citizen has no sworn duty to respond and does have the option of retreat when and where it is feasible to do so.

I don't know that the gulf between sworn LE and private citizens is that big in this realm. (I'm about to make some obvious points; there is no implication that anyone is unaware of them.)

Whether or not to retreat will be a chiefly tactical decision for both LE and p.c.s. For LE, if advancing is either going to put his own life at significant risk, or put innocent life (hostages) at risk, retreat should be considered. Retreat does not mean run away, but rather the tactical maneuver of getting to a safe vantage point (ideally one that does not allow the suspect's escape) and calling for back-up.

The private citizen "should" decide to retreat if he may do so in complete safety (I understand that he may not be legally required to do so). But again, the tactical decision remains as to what makes the most sense: stand and fight, or retreat to safety and call 911.

ADEE is a tactical mnemonic that, true, doesn't apply well to LE (avoid? How's that gonna work? ). I wonder if there is a better tactical mnemonic for police.

But AOJP is a legal mnemoic. The fact that ADEE applies to private citizens does not mean that AJOP doesn't apply, or doesn't fit "as well." The two just sit in different realms: tactics versus legal justification.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Loosedhorse: But again [(for the private citizen)], the tactical decision remains as to what makes the most sense: stand and fight, or retreat to safety and call 911.

The private citizen who elects to "stand and fight" when he is not forced to do so may find a favorable jury instruction allowing a defense on the basis of self defense unavailable.

State codes and case law vary, but necessity is almost always a requisite element of justification of the lawful use of deadly force.

Fred's point in saying that the police officer has no option to back away refers not to tactics, but to the fact that the sworn officer has the duty to pursue and apprehend a dangerous criminal one way or another within the limits of law and department policy.

The civilian, on the other hand, generally has an obligation to do whatever is safely possible (the safety of certain third persons usually enters into the determination) to avoid the use of deadly force and is not encumbered by a responsibility to chase down a suspect and make an arrest.

Whether the duty to retreat is stated in the code or not will not matter if it is a matter of case law; the right to "stand your ground" may be provided for in the code or in case law and may color the legal landscape in particular jurisdictions, but even so, retreat may be the wisest thing to do to avoid injury and to strengthen one's case in a legal defense.

The relevance of this issue to the thread at hand lies in the fact that (1) since the civilian has only to defend himself until the threat ceases and (2) since the police officer must remain engaged until his or her duty is done, the police officer is much more likely to require additional ammunition and the facility to reload.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Fred's point in saying that the police officer has no option to back away refers not to tactics, but to the fact that the sworn officer has the duty to pursue and apprehend a dangerous criminal one way or another within the limits of law and department policy.

The civilian, on the other hand, generally has an obligation to do whatever is safely possible (the safety of certain third persons usually enters into the determination) to avoid the use of deadly force and is not encumbered by a responsibility to chase down a suspect and make an arrest.

As you expect, I understand all this. I just don't think it therefore means that LEOs operate under AOJP, and non-LEOs operate (instead) under ADEE. Rather, that ADEE is an appropriate tactical mnemonic for private citizens, and AOJP is the proper legal justification mnemonic for private citizens.

ADEE and AJOP are not in opposition. And AOJP absolutely applies to private citizens.

In fact, even where there is no Castle or Stand Your Ground law, tactical considerations are probably slightly more constraining than legal ones. Tactically, a citizen is "forced to" stand and fight any time his retreat is more dangeorous than fighting; legally, he may elect to stand and fight whenever he cannot retreat in safety--even if fighting is more dangerous than fleeing, legally he need not flee if fleeing is dangerous.

"Duty to retreat" in those situations were it exists does not mean one must retreat even where that retreat endangers you; you must legally retreat only if it is safe to do so. And that "retreat in safety" phrase includes the safety of those the defender has a duty to protect; if I pursue an attacker who has broken off his attack on me to head toward my wife (placing her under lethal threat), then I am pursuing legally.

Of course, if a defender is covered by a Castle law or SYL law, he may stand and fight even if he can retreat in complete safety. The effect Castle laws and SYL laws is to (in effect) remove the argument that the defender could have retreated in complete safety, which would then invalidate the SD claim.

Again, I don't think we are arguing, just clarifying.

police officer must remain engaged until his or her duty is done

The private citizen also must stay engaged until his duty is done. For him, however, the duty when under deadly attack is limited to protecting himself and his family with deadly force until the attack is over (that is, until AOJ no longer apply, or until he and they can retreat in safety).

I don't believe that AOJ was "developed" or traditionally "intended" to cover only sworn officers. Just the opposite, I believe it covers the elements of the legal use of deadly force by any citizen, and derives from (English) common law.

 

[Al Thompson]

Salient point here:

strengthen one's case in a legal defense.

We've had a local case where a victim retreated till he couldn't, then he used deadly force to defend himself. He was exonerated. Another victim stepped outside a door with the best of intentions (and still on his property) who faced a much worse lethal threat. He fired and ended up charged and convicted till the SC Supreme Court over turned the conviction.

Self Defense is a thinking persons game.

 

[Fred Fuller]

This white paper might be interesting to some here - it may still be burdened by the selection of only successful self defense uses of firearms however.

Online copy -
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78800063/...sistance-from-Citizens-Cato-White-Paper-No-33
TOUGH TARGETS: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance From Citizens
Cato Institute, 2012

See http://www.cato.org/store/reports/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens to order a printed copy ($10.00).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Description:
This special publication uses an extensive collection of news reports from over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America. Federal and state lawmakers often oppose repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns. That opposition is often based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in contentious situations.

Those assumptions, illustrated in this report, are false. Such cases are an exceedingly small minority of gun uses by otherwise law-abiding citizens and a great number of tragedies-murders, rapes, assaults, robberies-have been thwarted by self-defense gun uses. The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent - and thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.

This report's analysis begins with an overview of the academic studies that have tried to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It then examines recent legal issues and trends surrounding the law of self defense, and then explores the manner and circumstances in which people use guns against criminals.

This paper also examines instances of gun use in self-defense in order to provide a better understanding of their character. When ordinary Americans use guns in self defense, what is the nature of that use? How frequently do these events occur and what are the consequences? Finally, a lengthy Appendix provides scores of documented examples in which ordinary people have used guns to defend themselves.


ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Author/Editor Summary:
Clayton E. Cramer teaches history at the College of Western Idaho and is the author of Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie (Nelson Current, 2007).

David Burnett is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Business and Economics and serves as the director of public relations for the Students for Concealed Carry.

 

[Loosedhorse]

From the report...

There is a selection bias problem with the method of gathering news stories. Many defensive gun uses never make the news.

Well, nothing is perfect. But recognizing the bias usually helps limit its effects, especially on conclusions.

It also provides a sufficiently large database (almost 5,000 incidents), randomly selected, so that some conclusions about the nature of armed self-defense in America can be drawn.

Five thousand is nothing to sneeze at.

Policymakers interested in harm reduction should thus refrain from treating ordinary gun owners as hoodlums or loose cannons and adopt policies that respect the ownership and carrying of arms by responsible individuals.

Well, we're not likely to get many "caliber most used" or "typical number of rounds fired" from this dataset. Which is fine. As seen above, the "conclusion" of this study is nothing more than the fact that gun-owners do in fact use guns legally, competently, and successfully for self-defense in a non-trivial number of cases. That is a not particularly surprising conclusion--and though the researchers seem to me to have been biased toward it from the outset, I can't argue that the data doesn't support it.

Maybe because I, too, I'm biased toward that conclusion...or just maybe because it's true.

 

[JRH6856]

Maybe because I, too, I'm biased toward that conclusion...or just maybe because it's true.

Or maybe you are just biased toward the truth?

 

[HeadJunter]

I found this interesting

From The Armed Citizen Archives
March 1975: Aroused at 5 a.m., Mrs. Estelle Beavan, 61, a Seattle widow, found a young man "tearing up the whole front of the house." She telephoned police. BUt when the man, after ripping off a storm door, bashed through a thick double-locked door, Mrs. Beavan fired one shot at about 10 ft. with a small .22 handgun that she had bought on the advice of a "relative in law enforcement." A bullet in the chest halted the intruder. Police said he was crazed by drugs. (The Seattle Times, Seattle, Wash.)

 

[HeadJunter]

And you therefore think that there are not even more examples of .22s NOT being instantly lethal? To the extent that your database doesn't reflect that, but it is in fact true "out in the real world"...well, that's the issue.

I'm still opening to seeing just one or, better yet just two, of the veritable plethora of examples that everyone says is out there. Especially those examples of the the Private Citizen being injured after making a hit with a .22.

Still waiting. Been waiting for a long time. Studies about penetration, hospital visits, etc. don't interest me. In case the query has been forgotten, I am looking for concrete verifiable examples of a Private Citizen being injured after shooting their attacker with a .22. Still waiting for the cascade of events showing this.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by HeadJunter: I am looking for concrete verifiable examples of a Private Citizen being injured after shooting their attacker with a .22. Still waiting for the cascade of events showing this.

The first question that comes to mind, of course, is "why?".

The second is, do you believe for some reason that that kind of information--i.e., detailed accounts of what happened to private citizens after they had shot other persons with various kinds of weapons--is recorded, compiled, and entered into some kind of public tabulation?

 

[HeadJunter]

The first question that comes to mind, of course, is "why?".

The second is, do you believe for some reason that that kind of information--i.e., detailed accounts of what happened to private citizens after they had shot other persons with various kinds of weapons--is recorded, compiled, and entered into some kind of public tabulation?

Since it happens so often, it seems that someone would be able to point out at least one incident where it occurred.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Studies about penetration, hospital visits, etc. don't interest me.

Of course, because the truth doesn't interest you. You're only interested in whatever can be most lazily found by thumbing through old "Armed Citizen" columns--stories that we know are specifically selected for the success of the defender.

If a guy using a .22 to defend himself failed and was seriously injured or killed? Guess what: excluded from your database. If there were a thousand such cases in one week, or just two, they'd all be excluded. Bias. Not truth.

But like I said, you're not interested in truth. As for us? You're taking the fact that we've got better things to do (than prove false something we already know is false, to your satisfaction yet) as proof that it's true?

I'm taking it as proof that we have good sense.

Still waiting. Been waiting for a long time.

And you'll wait longer. Just like I'm waiting for ANY shred of proof that your contentions have anything to do with the real world. Still waiting.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by HeadJunter: Since it happens so often, it seems that someone would be able to point out at least one incident where it [person injured] after making a hit with a .22] occurred.

Forgetting the attempt at sarcasm for a moment, lets's revisit the facts.

There is no mention in the posted article of any persons being overcome after shooting anyone with any weapons. Again, the report contains only accounts of successes.

The only incident reports in which anyone with standing has any interest at all in preparing for evaluation of the effectiveness of weapons have to do with law enforcement encounters--encounters by Federal agents, state highway patrols, municipal police forces, and the like. No one routinely analyses the shot by shot or wound by wound effects of a civilian shooting, but because law enforcement agencies do have vested interests that range from criminal and civil liability issues to the need to understand whether their firearms and ammunition, their encounters are analyzed in greater detail. That fact eliminates the .22 rimfire from the available data for the simple and obvious reason that law enforcement agencies do not issue or permit the use of rimfire firearms for service duty.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Ahh, caliber warz. Let's don't go there, please.

Back to the previously discussed topic... ran across this article today. Some of it explores the Cato Institute document, but there are other references as well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
OP/ED | 2/21/2012 @ 1:32PM |82,118 views
Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby
Larry Bell, Contributor

snip///
On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
///snip