It really is simple. First, I never said all LEO encounters like civilian ones.

If an officer has to fire 6 rounds to stop a knife wielding attacker why would a civilian need to fire less? Terminal ballistics don't change simply because a LEO fired the bullets.

Under the same threat, why is the actual shooting event different when an officer has to stop an aggressor than when a civilian does.

I never cited or reference statistics. But one can easily see multiple LEO shootings where the 3 - 3.5 rounds did not suffice. Why is that?

The shtf and you had to draw and fire. I’m not sure what you’re asking after that.
I agree that there’s not much difference if you’re wearing blue or plaid if someone is trying to kill you. If it’s a capacity question, again, LEOs run to the sound of a fight. Capacity is good in that situation.

__________________
“Look life in its iron face”

IF???

IF???

Where are your stats to show that your 6 rounds is anything other than either a made up number or referencing anecdotal incidents?

Yeah, on second read, you are correct.

You've just been makin' up stuff all along.

You focus on what led up to the incident, which in the discussion of how many rounds it took to stop a violent attacker is not germane to the discussion.

The "clock" starts when you have drawn your gun and commence shooting. How many rounds will it take to stop the criminal? Some say that it is only 3 rounds. Yet I have seen way too many officer involved shootings where it took more than 3 rounds. I didn't say all of the time, most of the time or cite any numbers.

We have many, many videos of OIS where more than three rounds were needed. That shows that a 5 shot Chief may not do it in some circumstances.

How many angels really can dance on the head of a pin?

Here's the best nationwide data on officers assaulted or killed. FBI — 2019

Yes, "if" as in an example as in "on the assumption that".

search youtube for this:

Female Cop Shoots at a Knife Attacker 14 Times - TheFirearmGuy

or this:

Police bodycam video shows knife-wielding man charge and attacks officer after being shot

And here I thought we could have a reasonable and polite conversation

That has absolutely no relevance to the issue under discussion.

Quoting my OP:

So, you've been OT this entire thread.

Provide sources (and not anecdotal "sources" of one incident or two) of actual stats and data, or just admit you have no answer to my original question.

Good one! Perhaps you need to define the terms of your logical definitions more accurately? In today’s America (which ain’t your father’s America), a person can be only one of two social entities at a time. Either someone is an effective self-defense gunfighter, or he is a passive and compliant social politician. You cannot be both at the same time!

So, which one are you: an effective self-defense gunfighter, or a passive, socially correct politician? Whatever your answer might be, I hope that for your sake you never have to choose. It is a very frightening thing to have to look down some bad guy’s gun barrel; and although you don’t appear to realize it, for the most part, in today’s America any and all acts of self-defense have become largely politically unacceptable.

In fact, over in Great Britain (where several of my family members presently reside) self-defense is mostly considered to be illegal, and British citizens have to be very careful about using or even attempting to use any genuinely effective means of self-defense.

In today’s world numerous governments reserve most, if not all, rights of self-defense (along with any and all sophisticated weaponry) to the political entity of the state, itself. Governments do have an irrefutable right of self-defense, but individual citizens do not.

Within the confused intellectual realm of today’s frequently self-contradictory and too often badly confused political melange, more and more of today’s extant centralized governments currently retain, or attempt to retain all rights of self-defense to the body politic itself while any and all individual rights of self-defense are increasingly ignored.

So, rather than diddle around with an inane topic like ‘how many shots get fired’, why not first make up your mind about what you intend to do if and when your own life is threatened, along with how you intend to react and effectively accomplish the task?

My strong suggestion would be for you to think things through for yourself ahead of time: Whether you respond like an effective self-defense CQB gunfighter, or a passive and socially correct politician just might turn out to be the last really important decision you ever make in this life!

Nice commentary, but I was asking specifically about the "he attacked first and, ideally, by more or less surprise!" part.

Thanks for suggesting these links. I just went to Ebay and bought one. Listed@ $69. Had to add tax and shipping still a good deal. I have been watching off and on for years.

Book described as Very Good. Read all the description and found it was signed by the author. What a bonus.


Personally, I tend to strongly agree with the self-defense explanations, cataloged experiences, and gunfighting logic of retired Sheriff’s Deputy Lieutenant Dave Spaulding—Strongly agree!

What Really Happens In A Gunfight?

COMBATIVE PISTOL: The Epistemology of Dave Spaulding – CIVILIAN DEFENDER

Furthermore, I also tend to agree with the recorded physical behaviors of NYPD Stakeout Unit gunfighter Jim Cirillo.

(Get ‘um while you can!)

9781581606492: Jim Cirillo's Tales Of The Stakeout Squad - AbeBooks - Kirchner, Paul: 1581606494

Jim Cirillo's Tales of the Stakeout Squad by Paul Kirchner (E-book) for sale online | eBay

Now to add a few comments of my own:



I would suggest that you shouldn’t. Moreover, ‘feelings’ are irrelevant. Performance is all that counts. When the other guy is better armed than you are then it’s reasonably certain that you are the person who’s going to get screwed.



Personally, I don’t think the preceding remark quite says it! What has always amazed me is the very sudden surprise that often goes along with self-defense events.

If a defendant has the advantage of prior training then his proprioceptive reflexes and physical coordination should be able to do all of the fighting for him, and THAT is where the real speed comes from. (The event is already over before the conscious mind is able to sort things out!)



Better yet, if you have a moment to yourself BEFORE walking into a self-defense event, try hiding your pistol in the armpit of your support arm.



Yes, but this is also well dated information that has been largely refuted by Dave Spaulding’s written records and work, and it is also at wide variance with Jim Cirillo’s well known and well recorded personal gunfighting behaviors.



If the word ‘stopped’ means what I think it does then actually each of these calibers (or chamberings) have failed to ‘stop’ far more times than any of them have succeeded, and that is the truth.

In fact all antipersonnel ‘combat calibers’ below 45 Long Colt have long been known to be highly inconsistent ‘stoppers’. This, of course, includes the 45 ACP pistol that I have carried around with me for 14 to 16 hours a day for more than 30 years, now.

The principal tradeoffs with combat calibers are rates-of-fire, and recoil manageability. A self-defense gunman has to be careful not to ‘outgun himself’—A subtle, but, very real phenomenon which I believe has, and has had, a deleterious effect on the combat marksmanship of many law enforcement personnel who continue to use hefty, sharp recoiling combat calibers like: 10 mm, 357 SIG, 40 S&W, and 357 Magnum.

Having to look down the muzzle of someone else’s handgun is disturbing, to say the least! During the first half of my life I spent a whole lot of time hunting all different sorts of wild game—Some of it dangerous. Consequently I have watched many wild creatures get hit and die in front of my gun. (Something that I am not proud of today.)

Looking back from where I am now, I find myself to be in complete agreement with the ballistic hypotheses and conclusions of both Dr. Michael Courtney and his very well educated wife, Amy (the other Dr. Courtney).

Dr. M. Courtney has stated:

“With a (combat-caliber)(Ed.) handgun, no wounding mechanism can be relied on to produce incapacitation 100% of the time within the short span of most gunfights.”

“Selecting a good self-defense load is only a small part of surviving a gunfight. You have to hit an attacker to hurt him, and you need a good plan for surviving until your hits take effect.”

“Get good training, practice regularly, learn to use cover, and pray that you will never have a lethal force encounter armed only with a (combat-caliber)(Ed.) handgun.”

“The ideal performance standards for a (marginally) effective ‘combat-caliber’ CQB pistol bullet are,”

“(1) A minimum of 450 ft lb of muzzle energy,”

“(2) A muzzle velocity of, at least, 1,250 fps,”

“(3) Penetration at, or about, 12 inches in a standard ballistic block of gelatin; and,”

“(4) The RECOIL CONTROLLABILITY of either a 45 ACP, or a 9x19mm handgun.”*

It is combat caliber logic like this that has impressed me the most; and this is the reason ‘why’ I strongly prefer (and have preferred) to mainly use a 45 ACP pistol for all contemplated self-defense work.



* Dr. Michael Courtney, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.3051.pdf.

(Yes, I know that the Drs. Courtney have aroused a lot of online controversy within various internet firearm communities. Be that as it may, as I have indicated, I too share in the above opinion(s)—Which I assure the reader have not been casually reached.[/QUOTE]

In my working years I have used statistics to identify solutions and to approve production processes.

FWIW the other relevant statistic is Std Deviation. At a minimum I would only consider a plus 1 1/2 sigma solution. If my life depended on it I would go for a plus 2 or Plus 3 Sigma solution.

Just an opinion the average is the stating point you need the "Sigma" number to make an informed decision.


You never want to be on the wrong side of "average" But half the time someone is![/QUOTE]

Yes, I know! I was merely pointing out to you something that every frontline police officer in America is only too well aware of (Don’t you watch any of the televised police video programs?):

CQB pistol gunfighting occurs in an enveloping environment that is most often timed in MILLISECONDS, not in seconds, and certainly not in minutes! Jim Cirillo definitely realized this; and, from what I’ve been able to observe, so do all of the other televised pollice officers who respond to possibly violent and dangerous situations on TV.

(What is one of the first things that real live police officers do while they are being videoed approaching dangerous, potentially life threatening situations? ANSWER: They either draw their pistols, or else they rest their gun hands on their gun butts—Right!)

NOT in one of today’s civil courtrooms but, for sure, out in the streets and neighborhoods of today’s, godless, and excessively violent world in which most citizens have to live: CQB pistol gunfighting is, without question, a proactive and not a reactive lifesaving endeavor!

Every life-threatening CQB pistol gunfight may be pragmatically divided into two distinct events: The first event is the actual gunfight itself. If that gunfight is survived then the second event is the political theater which is sure to follow. (Obviously a gunfighter has to survive BOTH events in order to be considered successful.)

Consequently, I think it’s reasonable to say that both you, and I are referring to exactly the same present day socio-political quandary of which the original question: ‘How many shots are fired’ is no more than a trivial non sequitur.

At the present time there is one socio-political standard for police executives, and there is another legal standard for armed civilians. THIS is the reality of the modern, carefully contrived, and socially engineered political world in which we live—A world which is almost totally dominated by the omnipresent and utterly pervasive, all powerful organized news and entertainment media!

America’s guiding social influence used to be sacred Judeo-Christian scripture (the Holy Bible), right! Well, those days are now gone. (At the present time the current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, herself, has at least twice repeated pointed remarks to this effect on national television.)

When I initially read several of your remarks these (1) tactical, and (2) social contradictions were obvious to me; and I was reminded that it is impossible, absolutely impossible, for any man to serve both God, and Mammon.

Regardless of whether or not he’s wearing a police uniform, either someone is an effective CQB pistol gunfighter, or he is not. The real question is (as you have already implied): Has that person—that survivor—behaved acceptably and in accord with prevailing social mores, or not? In other words, and by intellect inference, has that person behaved MORALLY, or not?

Well, . . . any such determination would, of course, depend upon whatever social drama, whatever televised theater, the organized news media works to contrive and present. (There is physical reality, and there is human perception which are, as you might by able to appreciate, not always identical to each other. The latter being far more plastic in its available interpretations than the former in its breadth and complexity.)

Here in the present example which features the CQB gunfighting behavior(s) of former police officer Jim Cirillo, according to previously published accounts: For a number of years the NYPD sent the Stakeout Unit out after the very worst of the most violence-prone criminals in the 5 boroughs.

It is a documented fact that the NYPD’s Stakeout Unit often waited in hiding for days at a time until one of these armed and exceedingly dangerous criminals would finally appear. When one of them did Jim Cirillo, who was frequently the principal gunman in the group, would step out of hiding, issue a loud verbal command for the criminal to surrender; and, if the subject did not immediately comply, Cirillo would rush forward; and, at the first sign of aggression, begin shooting!

More than being merely didactic and not having a wealth of other CQB pistol gunfighting examples to study, I always found Jim Cirillo’s gunfighting methodology to be especially interesting.

(Why his book on this subject was taken out of print I find difficult to understand. Neither do I see any of Bill Allard’s commentaries around anymore; but I guess, with self-defense being such an unpopular topic nowadays, information like this would tend to disappear from public purview.)

As a younger man Jim Cirillo appears to have relied upon his superior marksmanship and natural gun handling abilities in order to stop violent criminals from carrying out their evil deeds. Then, as the years passed, Cirillo began to use an entirely different engagement technique.

Instead of using sighted marksmanship Cirillo began to use instinctive aiming. He also preferred to work at very close range, and frequently rushed in at his targets while he was firing. (His mental discipline and ability to focus intuitively must have been phenomenal!)

The other thing I’ll add to these personal observations is that, while he was using revolvers (Cirillo always carried two handguns.) he tended to shoot those revolvers ‘dry’—Apparently he often found it necessary to do this in order to decisively stop the gunfight!

I do not know, and I have often wondered if Cirillo used these exact same techniques when he switched from using those 38 Special revolvers to the subsequent Glock Model 19 which the NYPD began to insist he should carry?

I do know that Jim Cirillo did not trust a 12 gauge riot shotgun and double-ought shells to consistently stop a gunfight, and he preferred not to use one. It has also been repeatedly implied that Cirillo did NOT care for using his issued Glock Model 19, either!

(An individual preference on Jim Cirillo’s part which I also share! None of my uncles who were, for the most part, active United States Marines wanted anything to do with 9 x 19mm pistols, either; and these are the men who originally taught me how to handle firearms long long ago, way back, when I was only 9 years old.)

Let me say this about that: How many three-round handguns are there on the market?

From Jim Cirillo's Tales of the Stakeout Squad. Sgt. Joe Volpato and Jim Cirillo were being interviewed and here is the entry:

"Volpato was keenly aware of the squad's undeserved image as ruthless gunmen who cut down armed robbers without mercy. He explained to me earnestly that always, always, the men of the unit issued the standard challenge, "Police! Drop your weapons!" He insisted they only opened fire after the gunmen they had interdicted turned on them with weapons in hand"

"Yeah," Jim interjected "but it's like some of them don't hear us."

Taken by Jim's straight face and objective tone of voice Sergeant Volpato turned toward him and said innocently, "Why do you think that is, Jim? The stress of the moment?"

"Nah," Cirillo replied laconically. "I think it's drowned in the sound of our gunfire."

Well...they are dealing with armed robbers.

" Manos Arribas, m-fs!"
-- Frank Hamer (reportedly)