[TheDreadnought]

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.

 

[TheDreadnought]

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.

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

 

[TheDreadnought]

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

Well statistics say otherwise. The 95% confidence interval tells us that is likely 2 standard deviations away from the mean. Given a standard deviation of 3, that would make 11 (10+1) rounds have a 99.7% confidence level.

If those aren’t exactly the numbers… the math puts it in that ballpark. More than enough to support a statement of “close to zero.”

if you’re going to argue math and statistics… know something about statistics first.

 

[TheDreadnought]

I’m going argue methodologies. You are assuming the population has an even chance of being a victim. It’s more local than that. If we subtracted 25 cites out the hundreds of cities in the US, our crime rate would be very low. If you are in those 25 cities, your chances of being a victim are much greater. If you work and commute certain hours you chances of being a victim are much greater. If you work certain professions, you chances of being a victim are much greater.

Chance to become a victim has zero relevance to how many rounds you use once you are in a defensive encounter.

if you have date that shows otherwise, please share it.

 

[TheDreadnought]

Sorry Dude but those are averages, some shoot a lot more, some with just one round!

Actually, it’s statistics. All the more and less shooting is boiled down into the chances given. That’s how statistics work.

 

[TheDreadnought]

What about those that were not captured by video?

the study wasn’t based on the video shootings. That’s was just the ASP guy’s observation.

Statistics also say he should have seen some if it was something that was happening.

 

[TheDreadnought]

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...

If you don’t like the facts, ignore them. Plenty of others in this thread say they plan to. No big deal. Life goes on. Nobody cares.

Edit: You appear to be responding to multiple different people as the same conversation.

You are obviously easily confused and have nothing worthwhile to offer. Ignore list for you.