Average of 3 rounds...

[adwjc]

I think it is inappropriate to use LEO statistics for civilian situations.... A civilian should be avoiding dangerous places and think about what is happening before you draw or fire.

Heinz,

you are absolutely correct. Tom Givens, one of the currently most prolific gun instructor/writers whose books I too have read, states that he prefers the FBI agent shootings (plainclothes-often off duty) because they are closer to civilian shooter scenarios than those of active on duty Police Officers.

Furthermore, with his years of training experience and record keeping of his trainees, he does give real, although anecdotal examples of real life gunfights.

 

[Old cop]

We should pay some attention to these studies but allow common sense to guide your actions. I rely on my street experiences plus the fact that I’m in my mid 70s, handicapped, my daily orbits are pretty tame & I no longer run into danger (or anywhere else for that matter).

 

[Telecaster]

Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables) | Guns Save Lives

From that we get:

Number of Shots Fired
Average 2.2
Median 2 (The number in the middle of the data set)
Mode 1 ("the number occurring most often")
Max 20

So most often, one shot was fired. The incident with 20 rounds fired, we don't know if all 20 were "needed" or fired "just because."

 

[Echo40]

It's just a statistical figure based on a compilation of reports regarding self-defense shootings. Like most statistics, it shouldn't be treated as gospel because these numbers only represent averages, and the numbers could be skewed based on how far they date back considering just how long both civilians and law enforcement alike were carrying Revolvers.

That being said, most folks don't want to get shot at all, that's just common sense, ergo it stands to reason that most folks who get shot at are going to surrender or flee within a few shots being fired, regardless of whether they have been hit or not, so I would surmise that those statistics are valid.

Granted that there's always the possibility that one may be attacked by the Crackerjack Boys who as we know have been pushed past the boundaries of ordinary folks by their addiction to caramel corn, and thusly cannot be stopped by anything short of physical incapacitation, but I don't believe in preparing for specific, highly unlikely fringe scenarios and would rather be better prepared for the most likely of scenarios.

 

[GT_80]

This "3 rounds" thing in a civilian self-defense incident involving a carry gun … is it real, or is it just so often repeated on boards such as this that it becomes something that "everybody knows" with no actual source ever cited?

I'd like to know what, exactly, this "average of 3 rounds" is counting, where the data comes from, and what, exactly, is the source compiling the data?

I don't mean vague words or a vague reference like "FBI" or some writer reporting the data without showing the source.

I mean exactly.

Can anyone cite the actual source? I've been unable to find it.

Just curious (and a bit of a data geek).

Paul Harrell on Youtube has a lot of videos on statistics.

The data is hard to come by- it is based on what is reported and recorded over years of police reports and fbi data.

It does not take into account unreported shootings, how many issues were resolved just by showing a gun, shootings with multiple assailants that were all armed etc.

I think it is based on reported statistics with home invasions, carjackings, citizens protecting citizens etc.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

You got that from Abraham Lincoln's blog didn't you

Excellent guess, but actually I used the traditional source - I made it up as I was typing it.

 

[Ziggy2525]

It's just a statistical figure based on a compilation of reports regarding self-defense shootings. Like most statistics, it shouldn't be treated as gospel because these numbers only represent averages, and the numbers could be skewed based on how far they date back considering just how long both civilians and law enforcement alike were carrying Revolvers.
...

Agreed. Beyond the stats, the other thing that factors into it is what any particular individual can do with those three rounds during those three seconds from three yards.

 

[CB3]

Based on these statistics, you can win most gun fights in each of the following situations:
1. Carry an unloaded two-shot derringer at point it at the offender.
2. Carry a loaded two-shot derringer and shoot it at the defender.
3. Carry a 5-shot snubby, loaded or unloaded, and point and/or shoot it.
4. Carry a revolver with up to 8 rounds, point/shoot.
5. Carry a mini semi-auto with six rounds, point/shoot.
6. Carry a large capacity semi and point/shoot.

Statistics belie real truth. You cannot tell what your gunfight is going to be like ahead of time. Preparing for the most statistically likely encounter and then encountering the situation farther away from the “average”, in the bad sense, is just not Boy Scout enough for me.

If you can prepare for the worst, you are prepared for everything less. Prepare only for the statistically low end of the spectrum and you can be unprepared for an encounter that is actually common but not average.

As well, there are different training theories as to whether one or two shots are going to stop an assailant, and whether you hit or miss, and whether you are being shot at and moving, and whether there is more than one aggressor, and whether he/she has a rifle/shotgun vs. your pistol, and . . .

Averages are just about useless for making informed, life saving decisions.

 

[ladder13]

Remember that these are averages. Sometimes it was more and sometimes it was less. That means there were times where someone had to shoot more rounds or had to shoot longer distances. etc. If you play simply to the averages you're gonna get burned. The average amount of times I need to change a tire is really, really small. Yet I won't go to the store without a spare. YMMV and each person has to make the call for themselves, but using averages as your only guide is, in my opinion, poor planning.

Tied for best post here. Averages mean squat.

 

[YkcorCal]

As my old statics professor used to say "you can prove anything with statics depending on how you word the questions asked."

 

[ladder13]

Based on these statistics, you can win most gun fights in each of the following situations:
1. Carry an unloaded two-shot derringer at point it at the offender.
2. Carry a loaded two-shot derringer and shoot it at the defender.
3. Carry a 5-shot snubby, loaded or unloaded, and point and/or shoot it.
4. Carry a revolver with up to 8 rounds, point/shoot.
5. Carry a mini semi-auto with six rounds, point/shoot.
6. Carry a large capacity semi and point/shoot.

Statistics belie real truth. You cannot tell what your gunfight is going to be like ahead of time. Preparing for the most statistically likely encounter and then encountering the situation farther away from the “average”, in the bad sense, is just not Boy Scout enough for me.

If you can prepare for the worst, you are prepared for everything less. Prepare only for the statistically low end of the spectrum and you can be unprepared for an encounter that is actually common but not average.

As well, there are different training theories as to whether one or two shots are going to stop an assailant, and whether you hit or miss, and whether you are being shot at and moving, and whether there is more than one aggressor, and whether he/she has a rifle/shotgun vs. your pistol, and . . .

Averages are just about useless for making informed, life saving decisions.

Tied for best post here.

 

[Borderboss]

Anyone who has never happened upon a gunfight would likely be paralyzed at the speed with which they occur . . .

Reminds me of the old adage "the quickest draw is already having your gun in your hand when the action starts". While you can't walk around with a gun in your hand all the time, I'm guessing this speaks more towards situational awareness.

 

[GT_80]

Reminds me of the old adage "the quickest draw is already having your gun in your hand when the action starts". While you can't walk around with a gun in your hand all the time, I'm guessing this speaks more towards situational awareness.

trying to teach my kids situational awareness - even as simple as looking where you are walking. Make sure you're not running across a parking lot without looking, not stepping on toys.. etc

 

[washerman]

Yeah all this is good info...But i just don't know what caliber i should be carrying...Should i carry 380 or 9mm??? Is 38 special enough you think??? What good is it to know how many rounds i should have in my gun when i don't even know which gun to carry!!!! Now i'm really confused! carry more bullets of 380 and less of 9mm? Its tough this gettin old stuff!

 

[GT_80]

Yeah all this is good info...But i just don't know what caliber i should be carrying...Should i carry 380 or 9mm??? Is 38 special enough you think??? What good is it to know how many rounds i should have in my gun when i don't even know which gun to carry!!!! Now i'm really confused! carry more bullets of 380 and less of 9mm? Its tough this gettin old stuff!

Any gun on your person is better than a gun left at home.

.380, 9mm, or .38 special all have stopped bad guys many times, and will continue to.

 

[YkcorCal]

Yeah all this is good info...But i just don't know what caliber i should be carrying...Should i carry 380 or 9mm??? Is 38 special enough you think??? What good is it to know how many rounds i should have in my gun when i don't even know which gun to carry!!!! Now i'm really confused! carry more bullets of 380 and less of 9mm? Its tough this gettin old stuff!

You are the same age as I am. I was born Dec. 23, 1949. PM me and we can talk.

 

[crstrode]

Speaking of statistics :

100% of the responses failed to provide a verifiable answer to the original question.

 

[LVSteve]

I am no expert on anything. That said, I think it might be helpful if everyone makes sure they understand the meaning and implications of "statistical average" and "standard deviation".

Now we're doomed, somebody insisted on bringing math to the gunfight.

 

[jlemay69]

Exellent Post

I think it is inappropriate to use LEO statistics for civilian situations. The Law enforcement officer has a different mandate and a different mission. They go into harm's way and protect the public from probable dangers. Even in a state like mine, South Carolina, there are limits to the "castle doctrine" The civilian shooter is responsible for choosing a proper target and responsible for the rounds that miss and do damage in the background. Whipping out your wonder nine and firing a seventeen-round burst is likely to get expensive unless your target is all alone in from of a brick wall, and you will still have a wall to fix. A civilian needs to identify the target, identify the situation as life-threatening, and know they are not shooting the bouncer, or an undercover police officer, or a kid with an airsoft. A law enforcement officer is going into a dangerous place because he has to and he needs speed. A civilian should be avoiding dangerous places and think about what is happening before you draw or fire.

Appropriate for all situations regardless of where it occurs.

 

[handejector]

the range of average number of shots fired in a self-defense incident (including law enforcement involved shootings) is 3.5 to 5.5.

Alan,
I know all ammo is hard to find at present, but I have never been able to find those ".5" rounds.

Are they only sold to law enforcement?
Can they be produced by handloading?
Do they work in autos, or revolvers only?
Are they hard to get out of leather cartridge loops?
Will they shoot to point of aim?

I gots to know!
Thanks in advance.