Why You (Probably) Should Not Carry A Weapon

[Dirty Dog]

However, studies about victims using their gun show that usually only 2 rounds are fired. They also show that once the first shot goes off, everyone starts running, whether they are neutralized or not.

That is incorrect. While this OFTEN happens, and that's great, it does not always happen. And you're going to really regret your two shot .22 then. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
And of course, you've now jumped from one single source, which has pretty crappy methodology, to claiming studies (plural) all support your 2 round claim.
Nor does the single, crappy "study" you cited make this claim. It says the AVERAGE is two shots. You do know how averages work, right?
There have been studies that indicate a gun drawn in self defense is actually fired in only about 25-35% of cases. So if you look at 10 cases, and 7 of them didn't fire the weapon, one fires 6 rounds and two fire 7, that's an average of 2. It's a pretty much worthless number.

From the study: "Even mouseguns displayed a significant degree of immediate lethality (30% immediate one shot kills) when employed at close range." (mouseguns being .380s and below) 30% immediate one shot kills, at the close distances involved.

Which means fully two out of three times, your mousegun is a failure. I'm ok with smaller caliber guns, since knock down power with handguns is urban myth; all that matters is accuracy and precision. One of my daughters routinely carries a .380. Because she's 5'1" and has hands small enough to reach the bottom of a Pringles can. But it's got more than 2 rounds, and she's been properly trained, so a one shot kill is never going to happen. Because she won't fire one shot. She's got reloading skills too. All my kids know better than to trust their lives to a one in three chance.
It's also revealing that your source considers a .380 a small caliber gun, but a 9mm (according to your words) is a large caliber. Because they're the same caliber. .380, .38, .357 magnum and 9mm are all the same caliber. The difference is in the shell casings, not the caliber.

This was in reference to the multiple attacker bit....

"The most common responses of criminals upon being shot were to flee immediately or expire. With few exceptions, criminals ceased their advances immediately upon being shot."

"Multiple conspirators were involved in 36% of the incidents. However, there are no apparent cases of drivers or lookouts acting as reinforcements for the criminal actor(s) once shooting starts. Immediate flight is the most common response for drivers and lookouts at the sound of gunfire."

This is not a "hope" this is what did happen.

You forgot the word "sometimes"... That's a significant thing to exclude. Especially since the "study" author somehow neglected to define the terms they're using or provide any information about how often fleeing was actually the option chosen. If there are 100 cases, in which 33 fled, 30 hid, 25 advanced, and 7 had heart attacks and collapsed, fleeing is the most common response. It's still a minority of the cases. Studies that do not provide information like this are, in many cases, doing so because the actual numbers do not support their predetermined outcome. What you're citing is not science. It is, at best, pseudo-science, and at worst utter nonsense.

 

[GojuTommy]

Studies have also found that 75% of shots fired under stress miss completely, and that it takes, on average, 3 hits to neutralize a threat. The math is pretty simple. That's 12 rounds.
The most commonly carried handgun is 9mm, which is certainly not a large caliber.

That's a "well duh" statement.

This is not a thing. Many of us buy ammo in bulk. Because it's cheaper. I typically order 3,000-5,000 rounds at a time. That may sound like a lot to a non-shooter. It's not. Because defensive ammo is not the same as the ammo used for target practice. I have a couple hundred rounds of defensive ammo, in the various calibers I shoot. I probably have 6,000-7,000 rounds of target ammo currently. When I go to the range, 500 rounds of target ammo is not at all unusual. Because you want to reduce that 75% miss rate, and in order for shots to end a threat, they have to hit something vital. So marksmanship.

Irrelevant.

Incorrect.

I don't need an 800+ HP car either, but I have one. Reloading skills are part of "comfortable handling and operating the weapon safely".

The indoor range I use is only 50'. I do most of my training at 20' or less. But I do shoot long range. Because it's fun. And it builds marksmanship skills that can reduce that 75% miss rate under stress.
The longest shot within my house would be about 80'. If you're in my house uninvited, I'm in danger.
The longest shot outside my house, but still on my property would definitely be a rifle shot, not handgun.

If it's not, then it's just a really expensive rock.

12 rounds is the mathematical minimum. Neither is it a large magazine.

You hope. Being prepared means preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. If you disagree, you clearly train MA for some reason other than self defense. Because you're very unlikely to ever be assaulted.

My gun is safely stored at all times. Within arms reach.

I have a couple dozen small caliber handguns (mostly 9mm, but some .45ACP and one .410/45 Colt) stored safely and responsibly in my home. And they're all loaded.

Studies also show that the majority of self defense shootings end with 6 shots or less.
This means something like a 1911, at 8+1 has the capacity for the overwhelming majority of self defense shootings. Carry a spare mag and you’re covered for 99% of situations

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/the-statistically-perfect-gunfight/#:~:text=This%20is%20the%20statistically%20perfect,a%20distance%20of%203%20yards.

Concealed Carry Corner: Self-Defense Shooting Distances -

Will be incredibly difficult. Let's take a closer look at what you need to know when it comes to self defense shooting distances.

www.thefirearmblog.com

How Much Ammo Capacity Is Enough? - Lucky Gunner Lounge

How much ammo to carry is a controversial issue. In this post, we take a look at something you might consider when weighing the issue.

www.luckygunner.com

An Official Journal Of The NRA | The Statistics of Self-Defense: Don't Bet Your Life on Averages

Don’t base your self-defense strategy on the average anything. You’re not average, right?

www.shootingillustrated.com

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, the manner of approach is irrelevant in most situations. Running, or walking, etc.
If a person approaches with weapon in hand or verbally issuing threats while approaching there is an argument for preemptive action, but someone simply running towards a celebrity because obviously security is expected to intervene to stop them.

There has to be something in what they do or say, that would lead a reasonable person to come to the same conclusion based on the knowledge that the ‘defender’(for lack of better term at the moment) had at the time.

I'm not sure you and I are saying different things, at all. Your last paragraph is basically the same thing as my post: "If they approach in a manner..." is pretty much the same as "There has to be something in what they do or say..."

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are a lot of strong opinions about what other people “should” do, or need in this thread. The real or imagined self defense use of a weapon is completely subjective to the scenario. The type of weapon, the person using it, the time of day, the location, the people involved and bystanders, and the mental or emotional state of everyone involved are all variable factors that affect these types of situations. Unfortunately, I most often hear people on both sides of these arguments being emotionally driven to make their point. Often, these “points” seem to be politically biased to either extreme. I personally believe a person has a right to defend themselves or others from criminal intent to harm. I don’t believe that relieves anyone of their responsibility for any actions in that regard, I likewise don’t believe anyone “should” tell me how to go about being prepared for any real or imagined scenario when they aren’t privy to the details of my particular situation. Twelve gauge shotguns for example, are not a good choice if you live in an apartment building because 00 buck will penetrate several interior walls with enough power to kill. If you live alone in a cabin it might be just the right tool. Small caliber handgun might be fine for a small or weaker person who lives in town but could be totally worthless to a person confronted with a bear in their house, particularly a low capacity, small caliber revolver. Buying ammunition in bulk is less expensive, and is typically indicative of someone who actually trains regularly. It should be noted that training regularly with a self defense weapon could translate to being a responsible weapon owner. Again, my point here is that use of, or ownership of weaponry of any kind for a self defense situation needs to be viewed through a circumstantial lens in order to understand the motivation and application. None of this precludes the full responsibility that comes with making a choice to do this. That said, an individual adult who is an upstanding citizen “should” be able to self determine the best choice for themselves in their own unique situation or circumstances.

Agreed.

There are stupid people out there making all kinds of bad decisions that put all of us in jeopardy everyday, being afraid and locking all the kitchen knives away won’t change that.

Arguing on the efficacy of a thing based on 'being afraid' is an appeal to machismo. I am afraid of volcanos, so I don't go into them. Fear is a very reasonable motivator.

But this gets back to stupid people. I believe most people are in fact astoundingly stupid. They base decisions that affect their own lives on things like how it makes them look to other people. Not wanting to be seen to be afraid motivates people to do the most amazingly dumb things, sometimes with firearms or other weapons. If the fear is based on reasonable danger that can be avoided, then avoiding it is the wise thing to do. And when the morons point and jeer and say you're just afraid, well good for them. I don't base my life's decisions on what other people think makes me seem less manly.

Getting back to the logical decision to limit access to a tool when the person in question has shown they will injure themselves or others with that tool, well, I have disagree with your statement. I can't cut myself with a knife I do not have. That's just a fact. If I'm prone to cutting myself whenever I have a knife, it is eminently logical to keep knives away from me. I didn't say YOU should not have a knife. I said that keeping tools away from me if I will only hurt myself with them makes perfect sense.

 

[wab25]

That is incorrect. While this OFTEN happens, and that's great, it does not always happen.

I never said it was "always." But, there are multiple sources saying that most of the time (90% of the time according to the Kleck study and the Cook and Ludwig study) the gun is not fired. Even in the anecdotal evidence here with the car burglar being shot in the back.... he ran when the gun was produced.

Then GojuTommy produced 3 more studies....

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/the-statistically-perfect-gunfight/#:~:text=This%20is%20the%20statistically%20perfect,a%20distance%20of%203%20yards.

FBI stats say the average gunfight includes three rounds fired over three seconds from a distance of 3 yards.

Concealed Carry Corner: Self-Defense Shooting Distances -

Will be incredibly difficult. Let's take a closer look at what you need to know when it comes to self defense shooting distances.

www.thefirearmblog.com

The FBI statistics show the average distance is around 7-10 yards with around 6 shots being fired.

How Much Ammo Capacity Is Enough? - Lucky Gunner Lounge

How much ammo to carry is a controversial issue. In this post, we take a look at something you might consider when weighing the issue.

www.luckygunner.com

In the overwhelming majority of the incidents where an armed civilian fires a shot in self-defense, probably 70 to 90% of them are able to resolve the situation within 3 or 4 rounds, and usually closer to one or two rounds.

If these numbers are wrong.... then you should be able to support that.

These studies are not liked by gun people.... because they do not support the idea that you need to be locked and loaded at all times, with 3 extra magazines and no you won't be doing John Wick style shooting and moving and fighting and shooting again. But remember, these studies are not about saying that training and more fire power are wrong or will never be needed. They are saying that most likely, you won't need to reload and most likely, you will have time to get your gun and caliber does not matter as much as you think it does.

Look, we all agree that a situation where you need a weapon to defend yourself is rare to begin with. In the rare event that you are in such a situation, according to Kleck and Cook and Ludwig (and a host of other studies) 90% of the time, the gun is never fired. So now we are down to 10% of the times you are in a rare situation to begin with. There are many studies, the one I linked as well as Kleck's study for starters, that show that the bad guys flee when shot at or shot most of the time... as do their accomplices. We are up to 4 studies now showing 2, 3 or 4 rounds, at least 6 or less....

You are correct. You could be that one guy that needs to turn John Wick on a host of bad guys. And in that case, yes, you want as much ammo and the fastest to reload gun you can get. We should be able to find a study showing how often this event occurs... or at least some anecdotal stories of it happening....

 

[Steve]

that 75% accuracy rate seems pretty consistent regardless of how much practice you have. Practice and training don’t seem to impact accuracy for police officers, for whom 25% accuracy is on the high side. Expecting the average person to do as well or better seems very optimistic to me.

 

[wab25]

that 75% accuracy rate seems pretty consistent regardless of how much practice you have. Practice and training don’t seem to impact accuracy for police officers, for whom 25% accuracy is on the high side. Expecting the average person to do as well or better seems very optimistic to me.

I think we are talking about different things. (this may be why we are disagreeing so much here)

One objective could be to kill the bad guy. If this is the objective, then we need to take into account the 75% accuracy rate as well as the average of 3 shots to neutralize a person... giving us the 12 round minimum requirement.

The other objective could be to use a fire arm for self defense. In some cases, that bad guy gets killed, but not all. In fact, 90% of the time the fire arm is never fired and the bad guy runs off. What the studies are showing is that after 2 to 3 shots, the bad guy is running or dying. Either way, the victim defended themselves.

So, if your objective is to kill the guy attacking you, you need much more ammo and much better training with the gun. If your objective is to stop the guy from harming you.... much less ammo is required. In fact, most of the time after the first few shots.... you have to ask if you are still in a self defense situation with the other guy running away....

 

[Steve]

I think we are talking about different things. (this may be why we are disagreeing so much here)

One objective could be to kill the bad guy. If this is the objective, then we need to take into account the 75% accuracy rate as well as the average of 3 shots to neutralize a person... giving us the 12 round minimum requirement.

The other objective could be to use a fire arm for self defense. In some cases, that bad guy gets killed, but not all. In fact, 90% of the time the fire arm is never fired and the bad guy runs off. What the studies are showing is that after 2 to 3 shots, the bad guy is running or dying. Either way, the victim defended themselves.

So, if your objective is to kill the guy attacking you, you need much more ammo and much better training with the gun. If your objective is to stop the guy from harming you.... much less ammo is required. In fact, most of the time after the first few shots.... you have to ask if you are still in a self defense situation with the other guy running away....

I’m just observing that when @Dirty Dog says you can improve accuracy with practice, the studies involving cops suggest that training and practice have minimal impact. And that 25% accuracy itself might be overly optimistic.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

While we might assume that all cops train with their firearm regularly, that is not the case. Some training is required for minimum standards but many police officers are not well versed in firearms and don’t fire their weapon more than once every six months. The exception are the officers that are on SWAT. I have treated many gunshot wounds on both animals and humans and several of the self inflicted accidental gunshot wounds were police officers. I have mentioned this here before, the firearm involved was a .40 S&W Glock. Each of those injuries were to the left fifth carpal or metacarpal. There is no doubt that regular, consistent, training makes a significant difference, shooting and safe handling of firearms is a perishable skill. I commonly do burpees or run to get my pulse and respiration up in between shooting drills to simulate stress and increase my accuracy under those conditions. Shooting from uncomfortable positions and angles, shooting with off hand, shooting from hip and while moving are all important ways to increase skill sets. To be honest, I do this because I love shooting, not because I am preparing for assassins to attack me. I choose to carry a weapon because I live in a rural county that has areas of no cell reception and police response times that can be upwards of 45 minutes. While I doubt I will ever need a weapon, I am reasonably sure I can do better than 75% because I practice frequently. As with anything, there are no guarantees, but there is no better insurance than regular training.

 

[mograph]

It seems that because stress can reduce marksmanship, training to acclimate to stress might improve it.

Factors Influencing Marksmanship in Police Officers: A Narrative Review

Law enforcement officers routinely face unpredictable scenarios that may threaten the public, their colleagues, or themselves. In such situations, officers may be required to use firearms, with shooting accuracy becoming crucial. This literature review ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Just an aside on caliber, one of my carry guns is a 5.7x28 mm. The diameter of the bullet is only one factor in determining ballistic coefficients. While the diameter of a 5.7 is significantly smaller, this round produces similar results to some higher powered 9mm cartridges.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

It seems that because stress can reduce marksmanship, training to acclimate to stress might improve it.

Factors Influencing Marksmanship in Police Officers: A Narrative Review

Law enforcement officers routinely face unpredictable scenarios that may threaten the public, their colleagues, or themselves. In such situations, officers may be required to use firearms, with shooting accuracy becoming crucial. This literature review ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

exactly.

 

[Steve]

While we might assume that all cops train with their firearm regularly, that is not the case. Some training is required for minimum standards but many police officers are not well versed in firearms and don’t fire their weapon more than once every six months. The exception are the officers that are on SWAT. I have treated many gunshot wounds on both animals and humans and several of the self inflicted accidental gunshot wounds were police officers. I have mentioned this here before, the firearm involved was a .40 S&W Glock. Each of those injuries were to the left fifth carpal or metacarpal. There is no doubt that regular, consistent, training makes a significant difference, shooting and safe handling of firearms is a perishable skill. I commonly do burpees or run to get my pulse and respiration up in between shooting drills to simulate stress and increase my accuracy under those conditions. Shooting from uncomfortable positions and angles, shooting with off hand, shooting from hip and while moving are all important ways to increase skill sets. To be honest, I do this because I love shooting, not because I am preparing for assassins to attack me. I choose to carry a weapon because I live in a rural county that has areas of no cell reception and police response times that can be upwards of 45 minutes. While I doubt I will ever need a weapon, I am reasonably sure I can do better than 75% because I practice frequently. As with anything, there are no guarantees, but there is no better insurance than regular training.

First, IIRC, some of the police related studies accounted for training, in that they compared accuracy rates before and after a more stringent training and practice regimen was implements. My single point is that, at the very most, any evidence that training improves outcomes when it comes to guns is non-existent or inconclusive. Maybe on an individual level, some people get more from training than others. To be clear, I'm talking about physical skills training. It may help. But that hasn't been substantiated by data.

But I think more to the point of this thread, the question is, do you think you're a typical or atypical gun guy? I'd say, based on your description, you are atypical. I'd put DD in that category, as well. I'll openly admit that this is bias, but out of the 466 million people who purportedly own guns in America, my faith that more than a small minority are qualified to do so is very low. Which, if I understand the OP correctly, is exactly the point he was making.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

First, IIRC, some of the police related studies accounted for training, in that they compared accuracy rates before and after a more stringent training and practice regimen was implements.

For the record, and I am very far from knowledgably on this topic, so I am not debating the rest, this does not indicate that training does not work. It indicates that the specific training they provided police officers worked. That could be a result of
1) Training is not useful to increase accuracy rates. This seems unlikely to me, as most things can be improved by training.

2) This particular training does not do a good job. This seems likely to me, as if the training is done in a range, and the studies are about effectiveness in the field, there's plenty of space for issues. Kinda like if someone punches the air, or a pad, and only does that, then goes into a fight, their ability will be lacking. That doesn't mean they can't be trained, but that the training they had was missing a crucial component (a resisting partner).

3) The police officers have no motivation to try hard in the training. This seems possible if there is no rewards/punishments for how they do. If that's the case, then no matter how good the training is, only the ones who have some internal motivation would actually improve from it.

3A) if the rewards/punishments are based on the range, you've got a mix of 2 and 3. People are motivated to train the unhelpful thing, rather than the helpful thing. From what my dad (LEO) has discussed with me, at least in his precinct (and 15 years ago) this was the case. They trained on the range, and would need to get a certain score on the range, or face disciplinary action of some sort. That means that their consequences were only related to fighting someone not resisting, in a low pressure situation, which is also what their training teaches.

So long-winded point short, training likely could help if it is focused on live pressure/resistance, AND the people participating have a reason to improve in shooting during live pressure/resistance. From what I'm aware of, and the studies I've read that say similar to your point, that is not the case. I'd be interested to see studies with those issues fixed.

 

[Steve]

For the record, and I am very far from knowledgably on this topic, so I am not debating the rest, this does not indicate that training does not work. It indicates that the specific training they provided police officers worked.

Totally. And to be clear, I don't think I'm really debating anything. I wasn't saying training doesn't work. I'm saying, training hasn't worked, and any assertion that it does (not might but does) work is unsubstantiated by data... so far.

That could be a result of
1) Training is not useful to increase accuracy rates. This seems unlikely to me, as most things can be improved by training.

To an extent. I've been in the training game for decades, and there's only so much you can do before actual experience is involved.

2) This particular training does not do a good job. This seems likely to me, as if the training is done in a range, and the studies are about effectiveness in the field, there's plenty of space for issues. Kinda like if someone punches the air, or a pad, and only does that, then goes into a fight, their ability will be lacking. That doesn't mean they can't be trained, but that the training they had was missing a crucial component (a resisting partner).

We could probably get more information about the training, but do you really think it's going to be much different than the regimen folks here have described? I would be surprised if it's other than more range time, drills, and exercises already described by others in this thread.

3) The police officers have no motivation to try hard in the training. This seems possible if there is no rewards/punishments for how they do. If that's the case, then no matter how good the training is, only the ones who have some internal motivation would actually improve from it.

Not super flattering to the police but a fair point.

3A) if the rewards/punishments are based on the range, you've got a mix of 2 and 3. People are motivated to train the unhelpful thing, rather than the helpful thing. From what my dad (LEO) has discussed with me, at least in his precinct (and 15 years ago) this was the case. They trained on the range, and would need to get a certain score on the range, or face disciplinary action of some sort. That means that their consequences were only related to fighting someone not resisting, in a low pressure situation, which is also what their training teaches.

So long-winded point short, training likely could help if it is focused on live pressure/resistance, AND the people participating have a reason to improve in shooting during live pressure/resistance. From what I'm aware of, and the studies I've read that say similar to your point, that is not the case. I'd be interested to see studies with those issues fixed.

Me too, but step one would be tracking some programs that do the things you outline above in order to provide the data. Does that exist? I'm not aware of any. There was a RAND study a while back that indicated that the impact of training was inconclusive where any data does exist, or unsupported by data. I'll add a link if I can find it again. And once again, I don't recall that it said training doesn't work. It was just saying, IIRC, we don't have any evidence that it works or doesn't work.

The Effects of Firearm Safety Training Requirements

Analysis of the impact of firearm safety training requirements on gun-related outcomes in the United States

www.rand.org

Here's the NYPD study I have in mind. I've shared it before. The entire study is available via pdf for free.

Assessing the New York City Police Department Firearm Training and Firearm-Discharge Review Process

This research brief summarizes the results of an assessment of the NYPD's firearm training and firearm-discharge review process, including a review of reflexive shootings, officers involved in shootings, and less-than-lethal force options.

www.rand.org

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

First, IIRC, some of the police related studies accounted for training, in that they compared accuracy rates before and after a more stringent training and practice regimen was implements. My single point is that, at the very most, any evidence that training improves outcomes when it comes to guns is non-existent or inconclusive. Maybe on an individual level, some people get more from training than others. To be clear, I'm talking about physical skills training. It may help. But that hasn't been substantiated by data.

But I think more to the point of this thread, the question is, do you think you're a typical or atypical gun guy? I'd say, based on your description, you are atypical. I'd put DD in that category, as well. I'll openly admit that this is bias, but out of the 466 million people who purportedly own guns in America, my faith that more than a small minority are qualified to do so is very low. Which, if I understand the OP correctly, is exactly the point he was making.

I think what you say here is true to the extent that I believe these things as well. In my own experience, physical training in a specific and consistent way has made me a faster, more accurate shooter. I likely shoot more than the average gun owner. 466 million? I’m not sure about that number. I’m thinking that is maybe background checks? Qualified may be a nuanced term for this discussion. In any case I’m really only coming at this from a personal standpoint, that these studies are often incomplete or slanted to show what one side or another want to prove. I’m of the opinion that both sides of any weapon or firearm debate have strong emotions guiding their beliefs. Unfortunately, there are enormous efforts on both sides of these debates to skew results of any study. I think it’s worth discussing on an informative level regardless of how people feel about it. I don’t have good answers for who should or shouldn’t have access or whether or how they will be considered qualified. I can only speak from my own experience and try to share information that I feel is pertinent to the discussion.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

This is the sort of healthy logic driven discussion I can appreciate. Thank you all for your thoughtful posts.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I'd put DD in that category, as well. I'll openly admit that this is bias, but out of the 466 million people who purportedly own guns in America

I missed this - did mean that there are 466 million people who own guns in America, or misread that there are 466 million guns out there? Because if the first, and you mean the USA, then you should seriously question that source. Considering the population of the USA is right around 334 million people.

 

[mograph]

I missed this - did mean that there are 466 million people who own guns in America, or misread that there are 466 million guns out there? Because if the first, and you mean the USA, then you should seriously question that source. Considering the population of the USA is right around 334 million people.

According to the Small Arms Survey, there were 393 million guns in civilian hands in the US in 2018.

Americans Own 46% of the World's 1 Billion Guns, Says U.N. Report

There are over 1 billion firearms in the world today, including 857 million in civilian hands

web.archive.org

 

[drop bear]

I’m just observing that when @Dirty Dog says you can improve accuracy with practice, the studies involving cops suggest that training and practice have minimal impact. And that 25% accuracy itself might be overly optimistic.

Sorry for the confusion.

Police gun training could very easily be garbage though.

If it was fight training it would fall well short.