Civilian Combat Stats.

This is a discussion on Civilian Combat Stats. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Randy, Do you see the title of the thread? It is about civies in combat. The context from the start was focused on the typical ...

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 187

Thread: Civilian Combat Stats.

  1. #151
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    Randy,

    Do you see the title of the thread? It is about civies in combat. The context from the start was focused on the typical civie, not one that is ready for anything as you put it. I've had lot's of training and there are plenty of realistic 'anythings' I'm not ready for.

    Apparently you're not reading my posts. If you were you'd see I have frequently and repeatedly stated I am not against training, I think training is beneficial, I even said in a recent post if things could be my way everybody would have training.

    Some how you can't seem to separate the high-speed, low drag stuff from what the typical gunowner is going to do. They aren't going to train for "anything"; they're basically going to buy a gun. And that is what this thread is about. No body has said anything about Zombie defense or anything of the like.

    The typical gunowner, again the subject and in context of the thread, is not going to SouthNarc's or anywhere else for any kind of training. Why is this such a problem for you to see?

    Nor, have I said one shouldn't prepare for the worse case scenario. I said the typical gun owner will not.

    But, 2 million a year gunowners with minimal training, met their worst case scenario in real life and survived.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #152
    Member Array Cruel Hand Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    401
    I'm reading your posts. Maybe you need to get someone ELSE to read them and tell you how they are coming across because you apparently don't see what the rest of us do in your posts.

    By CONTINUOUSLY qualifying your "I believe in training" with "But you apparently don't need it because 2MILLION folks didn't" gives a mixed message at best. It actually comes across as you are rethinking whether your training is really of any benefit.

    THAT is what I have been saying for however many pages. Your INTENT and your POSTING is NOT congruent if you really think training is important. If it is important then you should probably STOP saying "BUT...2million do OK." If it is NOT important then carry on.

    As far as hi speed stuff, virtually NOTHING that you get in the high level "swat oriented" courses are useful to civilians. Even the building clearing "shoot house" stuff is honestly of little relevance unless you use it in the proper context.

    So we agree. Mastery of basic gunhandling skills and heavy focus on awareness and FOF to get them used to seeing what an impending assault really looks like is what civvie students need. And that is why that is what I teach. That is why I don't recommend a lot of hi dollar gear. It just isn't needed.
    Randy Harris
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Master Class IDPA SSP

    TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris

  4. #153
    Member Array Cruel Hand Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    But, 2 million a year gunowners with minimal training, met their worst case scenario in real life and survived.
    You HONESTLY cannot say they met their WORST case scenario because there simply is no way of knowing that.

    Unless they all ended up in an initiative deficiency (they were taken by suprise)situation with multiple armed attackers then it likely was NOT a worst case scenario.

    But by CONTINUING to say this stuff you CONTINUE to make training seem irrelevant. If ANYONE can do it in ANY situation then you and I are fools for wasting all this time and money........
    Randy Harris
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Master Class IDPA SSP

    TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris

  5. #154
    Member Array Brian@ITC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Richmond, IN
    Posts
    123
    Well, I don't want to drift too much so I am just going to say this. Yes, statistically your chances are decent with minimal or no training. That I cannot really dispute. I do agree that the typical gun owner is not going to get any training. Personally, that is pretty scary to me!!! To think that we have "untrained" people running around with guns. And, how many of those people do not know the BASICS of gun safety! That is very disturbing in my opinion.

    Now, to require people to get training... do I agree with that? That is a very touchy subject. Because I do believe that it is every American's right to own a gun with or without training. I think that ever responsible gun owner should at minimal take a basic firearms safety course. Anything beyond that is up to you.

    Now, Tangle, you did hit a point that I liked, and that is that people have not had "formal" training. This is a very important fact. I have respect for those who go to the range on a regular basis and practice shooting and never receive a lick of "formal" training. At least these people are doing something other than carrying with no training at all.

    It would be nice if there were more detailed information which would help us all to sort things out much better. The fact is, there are plenty of grey areas in most stats.
    Brian K. LaMaster
    President, Innovative Tactical Concepts, LLC
    Instructor, Counter Force International
    http://www.right2defend.com
    http://www.modernwarriortalk.com

  6. #155
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    Let's see where we are. This is a thread about civilian stats, not what if's, worst cases, etc.. Let's be sure we understand what stats are. They are data based on what has happened in the past.

    The opening post gave stats based on research for an article. These stats were challenged as to whether they represented typical gunowners. Do they? Of course they do. Do they represent typical gun owners that have been in gunfights? Yes, I think they do. Why? Because 2 million incidents corroborate the findings in the article is an extremely strong statement about how minimally trained civies deal with a life threatening encounter.

    Now, basically trainers, have contested this whole thread and I'll be so bold as to say, have attempted to turn it into something it isn't. They have moved from dealing with the reality as demonstrated in the article and corroborating, overwhelming statistics, to talking about worst case scenarios, stats aren't everything, etc. But everytime I ask what they base their objections on, what they base their perceptions on, they produce nothing but more evasion.

    One trainer offered that Tom Givens has had 40 students in gunfights and they did better with training than they would without it. Is that 40 a year or just 40 over the last 10 years. Were those worst case scenarios? Do we know for sure, and by what percentage their training helped them? I think we only have opinion on that. Nevertheless, whatever it is, we are asked to discount 2 million incidents because......hmmm, I forget, why do 40 incidents trump 2 million per year, why is that again?

    It seems that we can't trust stats because they don't 100% disclose what can happen, so what do we trust?

    As far as preparing for worst case scenarios, I can tell you simply why that has not been happening, and isn't going to happen: people have lives outside guns and self-defense and they are NOT going to spend the time, money and on going effort to maintain the level of readiness required to be continually prepared for worst case scenarios that are extremely unlikely to occur. Shoot - I love to shoot and train, but I don't train for worst case scenarios and the huge, vast majority of gunowners don't and won't.

    Let's take Tennesse as an example. We probably now have close to 200,000 handgun carry permits issued. The training to get these permits include a very rudimentary shooting component. You know what they have to do? Make 70% of their shots hit some where in the black of a B-27 target. They don't pie, they don't use concealment and cover, they don't used tactical lights, they probably don't even shoot very well. That's reality.

    Randy, just for a talking number, let's say there are 200,000 permit holders in Tennessee. What percentage would you say is prepared for a worst case scenario? OTOH, what would you say their chances would be in surviving a deadly encounter and what do you base that assessment on?

    You know what I'd say don't you? Well, based on an enomous number of past incidents....

    But this thread really isn't about worst case scenarios, it's about stats for civies in combat situations, further defined by the article's disclosure.

    Let's face it guys, most civies and LEOS as well will spend that windfall $1000 on a golf club membership, buy a new gun, a new entertainment system, tennis lessons, etc. and never give a thought to are they prepared for a worst case scenario that is extremely unlikely to happen. Heck, I've heard a number of trainers that concede it'd be an inprovement if their officers wanted to carry their guns, much less actually shoot them.

    Brian,
    You bring up a very salient point and I quote, "Now, Tangle, you did hit a point that I liked, and that is that people have not had "formal" training. This is a very important fact. I have respect for those who go to the range on a regular basis and practice shooting and never receive a lick of "formal" training. At least these people are doing something other than carrying with no training at all. "

    Honestly, I don't consider that training, it's merely shooting. Training involves practicing techniques that push us to a new level. People can shoot for twenty years and not understand the basics of good shooting techniques. They'll never understand concealment and cover. There's all kinds of things that people that forego formal training and go to ranges and shoot need to know.

    It can be training, but unless they know what to train on, it's just shooting.

    One last point - for now.

    I belong to an indoor range and an outdoor range. I can do limited amounts of movement and shooting. We basically have to shoot down range. While I can safely stand with my back downrange, pivot, draw and fire without so much as sweeping a person five feet on either side of me, it is something I won't do unless I have the range to myself. I suspect if I get caught doing that I'll have to stop. The point is this, I go to all these training schools and do things that I can't do here, sometimes don't even know to do, but when I get back, I either have to use air soft or not practice. I think air soft has a purpose, but I really need to train with recoil, muzzle blast, my trigger pull and my gun, not a close airsoft facsimile. In fact, I have now rediscovered my proficiency with my 229 DAK; how do I find an air soft like that. So even when we've had the formal training, and even if we're willing to put the time, effort, and money into continual maintinance training, we are acutely restricted by our range facilities.

    But, there seem to be plenty of training junkies like myself to support a growing number of training schools.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  7. #156
    Senior Member Array dgg9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    philadelphia
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    Nevertheless, whatever it is, we are asked to discount 2 million incidents because......hmmm, I forget why 40 incidents trump 2 million per year, why is that again?
    For starters, you're comparing apples and oranges. The "2 million" number you're clinging to is a disputed number of DGU's -- NOT gunfights. The vast majority of those DGUs are brandishing. All the studies counting DGUs are telephone-interview styles, that do not get into real details.

    No, 40 is not a statistically significant number, but the results' specifics are much better documented.

  8. #157
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruel Hand Luke View Post
    I'm reading your posts. Maybe you need to get someone ELSE to read them and tell you how they are coming across because you apparently don't see what the rest of us do in your posts.
    I've read all Tangle's posts in this thread, I don't see where he gives a mixed message? What I take from his posts is the belief that training IS beneficial, but you don't have to be a Ninjaswatnavysealstacticalspecialforces operator to survive what could be a deadly encounter.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

    "There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
    ~ Tiger McKee

  9. #158
    Member Array Cruel Hand Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    But, 2 million a year gunowners with minimal training, met their worst case scenario in real life and survived.
    Ron you are the one who keeps bringing up "worst case".We comment on what you say and then you turn it around and say we don't get it. We get what you are writing....maybe not what you are intending.....

    And as far as Tom's students go, his data is a hell of a lot more detailed than an "ESTIMATED 2 million uses of guns per year" with NO OTHER details given.

    I'm not disputing the Ed Lovette DATA or the conclusion he drew from that sample.I'm disputing the CONCLUSIONS that are being drawn here .

    And the fact that I am a professional trainer has nothing to do with anything. I'm not here trolling for students. I'm not trying to change anyone's religion or convince them they'll die wthout training. Go back and read MY posts. I guess I made the 1st mistake when I saw the name of the forum and it reads Defensive CARRY. So I am assuming we'd be discussing this along the lines of people who carry guns. Not on Least Common Denominator gun owners who do not carry. I'm trying to discuss this from a street crime perspective. My bad. I guess that is just a little too deep.

    So 9 vs 45? Glock vs 1911?
    Randy Harris
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Master Class IDPA SSP

    TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris

  10. #159
    Member Array Cruel Hand Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by OD View Post
    What I take from his posts is the belief that training IS beneficial, but you don't have to be a Ninjaswatnavysealstacticalspecialforces operator to survive what could be a deadly encounter.

    And I agree with that even though he says I don't (and even though it is CLEAR in my posts). And no one is saying (especially me) that you need to be a Ninjaswatnavysealstacticalspecialforces operator to survive. I know FIRST HAND. No conjecture, but personal experience. BUT....if it happened today I would do almost everything differently. I understand the difference in good fortune and good tactics.
    Randy Harris
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Master Class IDPA SSP

    TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris

  11. #160
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    Quote Originally Posted by dgg9 View Post
    For starters, you're comparing apples and oranges. The "2 million" number you're clinging to is a disputed number of DGU's -- NOT gunfights. The vast majority of those DGUs are brandishing. All the studies counting DGUs are telephone-interview styles, that do not get into real details.
    There are no apples and oranges. The data shows what happen in 2 million incidents. So tell me dgg9, I've been pleading with you to give me some numbers that support your view and I've yet to see any. All I see is a continuing effort to discredit Gary Kleck's numbers and vault the significance of 40 incidents above the significance of 2 million incidents.

    I'm using term, DGU, the way John Lott and Gary Kleck do. Did you not see the quotes in one of my posts? I simply used the term DGU, defensive gun uses as they did in their texts. Where did you find that DGU is defined as a gunfight rather than more broadly Defensive Gun Uses?

    Disputed? Who's disputing it? Thirteen independent government studies essentially corroborated Kleck's research. He looked at those sudies and the way it was collected and was dissatisfied with the methods, so he did is own. His studies still agree with the other 13, but his study narrows the estimate. Only one study gave different numbers, and that was on the order of hundreds of thousands.

    Quote Originally Posted by dgg9 View Post
    No, 40 is not a statistically significant number, but the results' specifics are much better documented.
    No it isn't, it's not even close to statistal. What's more would I be correct in persuming it is base on one particular location rather than nationwide? I am correct aren't I? Also as I recall, several played the "it's to specific to one area" to the findings in the article and then turned right around and offered Givens, Memphis specific data as better than 2 million nation wide incidents. If you wanna talk about apples and oranges.

    But I am intrigued that we have more details from the Givens shootings than the 2 million nation wide, so what are the details? In how many of the cases were shots actually fired? What was the average number of shots fired? Were any of them worst case scenarios? How many assailents were involved. Did all of them occur on the street or were some in businesses, homes, and vehicles? Was cover or concealment used? Was a tactical light used?

    I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think if you insist that you have data that is more significant than the incidents in the article and so significant it should be given more weight that the 2 million per year I cling to, I think we'd all benefit from seeing the data.

    I'm sorry dgg9, I mean that sincerely. This has strung on and on, going in circles, huge studies discredited, and absolutely no data to support the claims, well other than the very location specific Tom Givens data.

    BTW, ddg9, The Tom Givens data, over what period of time did those take place, a year, ten years, I'm curious?
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  12. #161
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    Randy,

    We do seem to have some twisting going on don't we? You know why you see worst case in my posts? Because, it's mentioned so much in other posts to refute the typical gunowner incidents. I didn't I say anything about worst case scenarios unltil someone tried to use that as a reason not to trust the numbers from the study by Gary Kleck.

    If I may expound on exactly the type of thing that's going on here. I presented some corroborating data to the article and about the first thing that happened was dgg9, claimed that the numbers were high and that Gary Kleck's numbers were more like hundreds of thousands. I check into it and find that it is Gary Kleck that claimed the 2 million number and refuted the accuracy of the other study.

    Somewhere along the way, you, not me, began to talk about how we need to be prepared for anything and that the studies don't represent worst case scenarios. To which I replied that's true; in a recent post actually.

    Randy, I have asked repeatedly for details on the Tom Givens data from both you and dgg9 and have not seen anything. Now, let's suppose we have incredible details, and all are worst cases, the guys couldn't have survived without the training. What do we have? Forty cases! Forty cases over how many years? And from one specific location. Forty location specific cases compared to 2 million nation wide by Gary Kleck and you want us to believe, the 40 cases are more significant?
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  13. #162
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    Quote Originally Posted by OD View Post
    I've read all Tangle's posts in this thread, I don't see where he gives a mixed message? What I take from his posts is the belief that training IS beneficial, but you don't have to be a Ninjaswatnavysealstacticalspecialforces operator to survive what could be a deadly encounter.
    OD,

    Thanks for the clarification. You are exctly correct in what I've been trying to say, and I thought I made the point pretty clearly. I think by now most of us know exactly what you meant by "Ninjaswatnavysealstacticalspecialforces". A bit of an exageration to make a point. Often done in literature.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  14. #163
    OD*
    OD* is offline
    Moderator
    Array OD*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Coopersville
    Posts
    10,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    I think by now most of us know exactly what you meant by "Ninjaswatnavysealstacticalspecialforces". A bit of an exageration to make a point.
    Just a bit.
    "The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper

    "Diligentia Vis Celeritas"

    "There is very little new, and the forgotten is constantly being rediscovered."
    ~ Tiger McKee

  15. #164
    Member Array Cruel Hand Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    401
    The 47 cases are signifcant in that

    1. They are all people who had training and not just any training but training from the same source.

    2. They were all debriefed afterward.

    3. They ALL (except for the 2 without a gun) prevailed.

    4. As far as I know they all fired their weapon....not just brandished.AFIK the brandishings don't get counted.....

    I'm not saying that the 47 outweigh 2.5 million. But with 47 debriefed by a criminal investigator (Tom worked for Memphis PD for a long time as both street cop and investigator and is still often being retained as expert witness for trials ) vs a nebulous "2.5 million incidences" with no further data.......

    I'm a little past the point of caring about a "pep rally" for gun ownership which is largely what More Guns, Less Crime is (yeah I've read those books too).....great 2.5 million uses per year!.....makes me feel good, but how many were mere brandishing? How many were involving multiple assailants? How many BG killed? Wounded? How many good guys wounded? I want to know WHAT happened and WHY the civilians were victorious. Lott's numbers don't tell that.

    I'll ask Tom to post the numbers. I don't know if he will or not, but I'll ask. I don't really feel it is my place to post since it is HIS data.
    Randy Harris
    Suarez International Tier 1 Staff Instructor
    NRA Certified Instructor
    Master Class IDPA SSP

    TRAIN with me....http://www.suarezinternationalstore....px?find=harris

  16. #165
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,661
    Guys, the words have been said, in many circles now and I see nothing further coming from this.

    Randy and dgg9 staunchly lean on the 40 incidents in the location specific data, I lean staunchly on 2 million nation wide incidents and studies with typical other studies involving typical gunowners.

    So I think for my part, I'll withdraw from the discussion.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone have good stats on WHERE people get shot in police/civilian shootings?
    By OPFOR in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2010, 11:54 AM
  2. Wow! CWP stats for SC are out....
    By AllAmerican in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 5th, 2009, 09:04 PM
  3. FL CWP Stats.
    By FN1910 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 25th, 2008, 09:39 PM
  4. stats
    By docsludge in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 14th, 2007, 07:24 PM
  5. Civilian combat schools trouble some
    By Steelhorse in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: June 1st, 2006, 12:04 AM

Search tags for this page

armed civilian stats
,
blackwater civilian training
,
civilian bug ccw
,
civilian gunfight statistics
,
civilian self defense statistics formal training
,
fbi 3 shots or less
,
tom given judge
,

tom givens randy harris

,
tom givens student gunfight reports
Click on a term to search for related topics.