[Nanuk]

Posted this in response to another question on related topic. . . but thought I'd share it as it's own info on the Carry board.


A guy did a statistical analysis of more than a thousand CIVILIAN shootings, and found that:

75% of all civilian shootings are resolved with 5 rounds or less
95% of civilian shootings are resolved with 8 rounds or less

With 10+1 in your gun, the chances you'll need more ammo to finish the fight are near zero.

Also, the Active Self Protection guy has stated that out of however many hundreds or thousands of shooting videos he's seen, he's NEVER ONCE seen anybody have to reload and keep fighting. Any reloads always happened after the fight wound up being over.

Not "near zero" but 5% over all. How do you know which one you are gonna be in? I will still carry a reload, whether it is for when I think the fight is over or to stay in the fight. It is all well and good, but it takes little effort to carry a reload.

 

[Nanuk]

5% at 8 rounds. Near zero with 10+1.

There is not data to support that. You are just extrapolating the numbers. Basically the same number of people claim to have been abducted by aliens as have used a gun for self defense. So if what you carry is based on the odds, why are you even carrying?

Data Visualization | Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S. | The Heritage Foundation

According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. From @HeritageDataViz

datavisualizations.heritage.org

 

[Nanuk]

The only thing I can think of is the spare magazine competes for real estate with the smart phone, pepper spray, hand held flashlight, and these days the med kit/TQ. Especially if one needs to dress business casual to blend in with their environment.

Pepper spray? extra light? My phone has a light. My belt will work as a TQ. How are you gonna dress casual with a Batman utility belt?

 

[Nanuk]

It would suck to be dying and think “guess I bet the wrong odds”

There are only 2 times where you might have too much ammo, if you are swimming or on fire.

 

[Nanuk]

The US Border Patrol conducted a study around 2010 and determined that no Agent had to reload to stay in the fight since transitioning to semi auto's in the mid 1990's a 15-16 year period with hundreds of shootings. We still carried at least 2 reloads.

 

[Nanuk]

I appreciate you sharing this. It seems to be there is a echo chamber within the defensive firearms training community that is amplified further by the Internet. Then a normal person like myself seeking out information is confronted from every direction about the need to carry the biggest gun he or she can with the most ammo he or she can and that caliber doesn't matter over capacity and if you don't have medical you will bleed out before help arrives or your loved one will, etc. It's also easy to go down the rabbit trail on the Internet with what if scenarios and the generalized news about the nature of violent crime and the response time for help to arrive.

I could imagine that as a plain clothes officer your experience calling for help from your department and other affiliated services would be different than someone cold calling 911.

Proper training is more important than having the latest gear. Since you mention medical lets go there. Have you taken a combat medical course? Do you know how to control bleeding at extremities? Do you know how to control bleeding in the torso? You can use field expedient tools. A sanitary napkin, a belt, a T shirt, Heck you can even stick a tampon in a hole.

And yes being a gun forum it does tend to be gun centric. Here I thought I had found my holy grail in carry pistols with 1911 10mm's only to discover the Sig P320 and the evolved Sig P365.

 

[Nanuk]

Active self protection guy said he watched 40,000 videos of violent encounters and never saw a civilian reload during a fight. He has concluded a spare magazine is an”woobie.”

I like my “woobies” and will continue to carry at least one on most occasions.

ETA: I have seen a couple of videos where the victim was at slide lock at the end. That is cutting it close.

It’s definitely a good argument for carrying a higher capacity gun however.

You are better off to carry a reload than a higher capacity gun. Most people will burn thru what is in the gun if a target is available. When you think the fight is over, reload.

 

[Nanuk]

Posted this in response to another question on related topic. . . but thought I'd share it as it's own info on the Carry board.


A guy did a statistical analysis of more than a thousand CIVILIAN shootings, and found that:

75% of all civilian shootings are resolved with 5 rounds or less
95% of civilian shootings are resolved with 8 rounds or less

With 10+1 in your gun, the chances you'll need more ammo to finish the fight are near zero.

Also, the Active Self Protection guy has stated that out of however many hundreds or thousands of shooting videos he's seen, he's NEVER ONCE seen anybody have to reload and keep fighting. Any reloads always happened after the fight wound up being over.

What about those that were not captured by video?

 

[Nanuk]

Since you directed this at me, I will answer. I do not have formal combat medical training. I do have Red Cross training for CPR, First Aid, AED. I have also done their online course on FAST Stop the Bleed course. I have used some of these skills in real life, particularly remaining calm, keeping a person who is bleeding calm (medical not trauma), and asking the "SAMPLE" medical questions to be able to relay life information if necessary.

I do not carry all that **** referenced around with me constantly. I have carried a larger field first aid kit when hunting and have kept a smaller set of handy things in my ever-present laptop bag. My purpose in in participating with this thread was to comment on the character of the information that I have encountered in my self study via online materials and books, not to imply that I myself am doing all that or trying to.

Thanks, not trying to pick on you. It is just that many on these forums parrot info without giving it thought. As part of my LE duties years ago I was a NREMT. I just don't carry a trauma kit everywhere I go.

 

[Nanuk]

And just like that you lost all your credibility to lecture me on field expedient medicine.

Why? Because you don't carry tampons?

 

[Nanuk]

I don't disagree with you about carrying a reload but the statistics would seem to not bear your above statement out

Really? OK show a study.

 

[Nanuk]

You are correct in that it was taught. It’s not anymore at reputable schools, at least not that I’m aware of. Hasn’t been for a while.

That is true. It was taught more as a way to get people to think outside the box in emergency situations than as any actual benefit. Sanitary napkins, however, make great bandages.

 

[Nanuk]

Tom Givens has provided data. There's also the Kleck study. There are also the multiple active self-protection videos that don't even show people reloading.

Just because they don't reload does not mean they are not empty. See the difference. There have been a multitude of LE shootings where the officer has dumped the entire ammo load on one target and had an empty gun when help arrived. That means that a reload would not have changed the situation, not that having a reload to use was not a good idea. Don't get lost in the small picture.

 

[Nanuk]

FIFY.

You missed the whole point.

I would not stock a trauma kit with them, but if you were at the mall it would make a great field expedient bandage. Much better than using your dirty socks, they are at least sterile and absorbent. In the latest mall shooting it took 11 minutes before the police arrived. How many wounds could you bandage with field expedient dressings in that time? Remember EMS ain't coming until 5.0 gives the all clear, that could be hours. Sure a stack of 4x4's and roll gauze would work, a specialty trauma bandage is best. How many combat compresses do you carry daily?

Do you carry a 15 person trauma kit with you?

 

[Nanuk]

I get where you’re coming from, I remember being told they were a thing back in they day. Here’s an interesting article from the Emergency Medicine Journal about tampons from 2018:

Improvised first aid techniques for terrorist attacks | Emergency Medicine Journal

emj.bmj.com

Relevant quote from the article:
“While the majority of the information provided is based in historical evidence, in today’s era of superior wound packing materials the use of tampons for gunshot wounds (GSWs) is an inferior and dangerous suggestion.”

See post #163.

I am not suggesting to use tampons. I mentioned it as emergency, field expedient option, more as a joke than anything until people started losing thier minds over it. To be clear the last combat medicine training I took was in 2011.

 

[Nanuk]

Now you're comparing apples and oranges, and losing sight of correct terminology.
You've failed to understand that once you are in a self-defense situation, you are a victim. One doesn't have to be injured or killed to be a victim. And yet you and your "expert" keep stating the opposite...
BTW, you started this thread stating, "A guy did a study...". In ALL of the 8 pages currently on this thread, you have yet to give a name to "this guy" or give us the parameters of his study. Curious...

https://c.tenor.com/wJBEzOJrc28AAAAC/spongebob-magic.gif

 

[Nanuk]

I'd like to dedicate this song to our newest resident troll Rock Crawler

Good song

 

[Nanuk]

How many rounds did the active shooter in that incident fire after he was hit with the first shot (and "wilted")? After the second hit? Etc.

 

[Nanuk]

So if the probability you will even need a gun is (guess) 1 in 10 million or .00001%

and the probability if you ever need a gun you need more than 8 rounds is 5%

the combined probability is .0000005%

I will risk it! That is probably less chance than getting hit by lightning while being attacked by a shark on February 29th.

Why even carry a gun?

 

[Nanuk]

What facts? "Some guy said" is not "facts" or a "study". We have no idea what the sample size was. We have no idea how the data was selected. We have no idea what the source of the data was. We have no idea who this guy is. Does he do statistical studies for a living? Did he get a new calculator with a "%" button and decide to be a scientist? What distribution was used to determine that there is only a 5% change of needing more? Did you assume a normal distribution? Is that valid for this data set (what about values less than zero in the normal distribution?) What is the error in the values? Did he identify any possible biases in this study?

Things like this are worse than useless because they make you feel like you know something. Of course we don't because we have no basis for this study.

Apparently some dude watched a bunch of video's and made a conclusion then called it a study.