Armed Citizen Analysis - Page 2

David Armstrong · January 3, 2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

That may be true, If the numbers are the same or close it validates this analysis, all I am saying is the method of accumulating these numbers from Armed Citizen is very unscientific.

No disagreement from me there. But one can often identify trends and issues without getting into rigorous scientific studies, particularly when many different sources provide very similar results.

Quote:

Again, not very scientific.

Agreed, but probably far more scientific than just making a wild guess about any of the stuff. And depending on how you choose to use the information and what you are looking at it can certainly rise to the quasi-experimental level.

Quote:

The Italics are the authors and not mine. This is chapter one page 5. It is harder to use stronger language than "of no value"

But note that the author does not say that a random sample is the only way to collect data, only that the data must be collected using an appropriate method, with a random sample being one example of an appropriate method.

Brit · January 3, 2009, 02:29 PM

How about making it as simple as it can get, shoot whom ever, with whatever, a whole lot!

Claude Werner · February 17, 2009, 12:48 AM

Well, I did the study because when I looked for something definitive on the subject to give my students all I found was a bunch of anecdotes or conjecture and speculation. The anecdotes usually took the form of: "I had friend on the force who knew an officer in another town, who heard about such and such an incident." The conjecture was mostly pulled out of the person's fourth point of contact based on reading gun magazines or the ErrorNet.

My Analysis has some gaping holes in it but I still haven't found anything better or even as good. Please don't point me to SOP-9 or LEOKA; as a professional researcher, the holes in both and/or faulty analysis that they engender is too much for me to bear. :barf:

The difference in situational dynamics between private citizen incidents and LE incidents is too large to be ignored. Absolutely apples and oranges. If anyone has done a valid study of the nature, not quantity, of private citizen incidents, I would love to hear about it.

BTW, it was a woman who shot the lion.

pax · February 17, 2009, 04:51 AM

Claude ~

Where was this first published?

pax

David Armstrong · February 17, 2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Well, I did the study because when I looked for something definitive on the subject to give my students all I found was a bunch of anecdotes or conjecture and speculation.

Then many thanks and kudos, to you, Claude. It is a great example of how one can take information readily available in the public sector and use it to identify trends and patterns without getting into lots of esoteric research design and analysis issues.

Claude Werner · February 17, 2009, 01:06 PM

Kathy, I first published it on an Internet Forum (frankly I don't remember which) because I was so fed up with the mis/disinformation I saw over the years. I wrote it a couple of years before I wrote my article for CCM.

**OldMarksman** · February 17, 2009, 01:16 PM

What The Armed Citizen does not and cannot chronicle is how many assaults are not attempted because the would-be assailant is deterred by the possibility that the would-be victim is armed.

Double Naught Spy · February 17, 2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

No disagreement from me there. But one can often identify trends and issues without getting into rigorous scientific studies, particularly when many different sources provide very similar results.

Ah, one can often misidentify trends or rather identify trends that don't actually exists or miss trends that do without getting into rigorous scientific studies. Mis-sampling (or rather the sampling of non-representative data) in such analyses is a real issue in coming up with properly identified trends.

Quote:

What The Armed Citizen does not and cannot chronicle is how many assaults are not attempted because the would-be assailant is deterred by the possibility that the would-be victim is armed.

Nor does it document the number that occurred in spite of the possibility that the victim is armed.

Nor does it chronicle how many were stopped without a gun or how many were NOT stopped with a gun.

In reality, it doesn't chronicle a whole lot of the known incident population and certainly none of the unknown population.

David Armstrong · February 17, 2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Ah, one can often misidentify trends or rather identify trends that don't actually exists or miss trends that do without getting into rigorous scientific studies. Mis-sampling (or rather the sampling of non-representative data) in such analyses is a real issue in coming up with properly identified trends.

True, but when you find multiple studies, done by multiple parties, that all indicate the same trends it is fairly telling. And certainly far better than the oft-heard "I think I might sometime maybe need just in case..." nonsense that passes for reasoning with so many on so many gun forums

.

Brian Pfleuger · February 17, 2009, 02:10 PM

I'd rather have a somewhat flawed study based on real data than somebody's somewhat flawed reasoning based on conjecture.

Tennessee Gentleman · February 17, 2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claude Werner

The difference in situational dynamics between private citizen incidents and LE incidents is too large to be ignored. Absolutely apples and oranges.

This is a good retort to the antis who say: "Civilians carrying concealed weapons doesn't do any good because even trained policemen only hit their targets 20% of the time!".

vox rationis · February 17, 2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

The big Question answered!

So! Show me one incident that does not valadate... Glock 19, sixteen rounds of 127g +P+ 9mm, and a spare magazine with 17 rounds of the same, and bright flash light on the same belt as the rest of the afore mentioned kit!T

Plus great night sights!!

Exactly.

Just because a lowest common denominator is statistically sufficient, that doesn't mean that simply meeting that lowest statistical common denominator is the most optimal choice one can make.

So sure, someone can argue that 3 shots of .25 caliber may be statistically sufficient in most self defense situations, but that doesn't mean that being armed with 3 shots of .25 caliber is an optimal self defense choice.

So I'll stick to my USPc or G17 70-80% of the time (and my 638 the rest of the time).

Claude Werner · February 17, 2009, 09:41 PM

"This is a good retort to the antis who say: 'Civilians carrying concealed weapons doesn't do any good because even trained policemen only hit their targets 20% of the time!'."

The trainer I know with the largest number of private citizen CCW students who have been in shootouts (49 incidents at last count) has a student hit ratio of 95%. Probably because he trains them correctly and personally can demonstrate how to shoot well.

Tennessee Gentleman · February 17, 2009, 10:16 PM

Claude,

I am sure good training makes a difference. However, the bigger difference maker is the fact that LEOs have to enforce the law and arrest BGs. We civilians don't and so the dynamic as you stated earlier is totally different and actually is in our favor. For one, I believe when most BGs attack civilians they probably don't expect them to be armed and when they take on a cop they KNOW he/she is armed and so respond accordingly. Maybe with more CCWs that may have an impact on BG thinking?

thibaultfelix40 · September 3, 2011, 11:28 PM

The goal in self defence is to make the assailent change his behavior. Just showing a gun has been effective for me. My mother used to run horses and cattle out of the yard with ratshot. It is not uncommon in the country for people to use 22's on large troublesome animals. It works on people too. They quit messing arround. Any anamal or person shot with a 22 is hurt probably badly hurt. When doped up people take multiple large rounds it is more of a testament of the power of the drugs than the lack of power of the gun.

C0untZer0 · September 4, 2011, 12:25 AM

great post

thanks

Achilles11B · September 4, 2011, 01:58 AM

Hold on, hold on...

...a lion?

shootniron · September 4, 2011, 03:32 AM

I find these 2 categories to be the most interesting. They tell me that I do not necessarily need to carry a gun to thwart an attack of even multiple assailants.

Body Carry
Type of Location No Yes
Business 69% 31%
Home 94% 6%
Public 49% 51%
In or around Vehicle 65% 35%
Overall 80% 20%

Multiple Assailants
Type of Location NO YES
Business 76% 24%
Home 72% 28%
Public 62% 38%
Retail Business 52% 48%
In or Around Vehicle 49% 51%
Overall 64% 36%

I think that I will carry my gun anyway...

February 17, 2009, 04:51 AM	#29
pax Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2000 Location: In a state of flux Posts: 7,520	Claude ~ Where was this first published? pax __________________ Kathy Jackson My personal website: Cornered Cat

February 17, 2009, 02:10 PM	#35
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	I'd rather have a somewhat flawed study based on real data than somebody's somewhat flawed reasoning based on conjecture. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

February 17, 2009, 09:41 PM	#38
Claude Werner Junior Member Join Date: February 17, 2009 Location: Hotel Carlton Posts: 8	"This is a good retort to the antis who say: 'Civilians carrying concealed weapons doesn't do any good because even trained policemen only hit their targets 20% of the time!'." The trainer I know with the largest number of private citizen CCW students who have been in shootouts (49 incidents at last count) has a student hit ratio of 95%. Probably because he trains them correctly and personally can demonstrate how to shoot well. __________________ The artist formerly known as HeadHunter.

February 17, 2009, 10:16 PM	#39
Tennessee Gentleman Senior Member Join Date: March 31, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 1,775	Claude, I am sure good training makes a difference. However, the bigger difference maker is the fact that LEOs have to enforce the law and arrest BGs. We civilians don't and so the dynamic as you stated earlier is totally different and actually is in our favor. For one, I believe when most BGs attack civilians they probably don't expect them to be armed and when they take on a cop they KNOW he/she is armed and so respond accordingly. Maybe with more CCWs that may have an impact on BG thinking? __________________ "God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier.

September 3, 2011, 11:28 PM	#40
thibaultfelix40 Senior Member Join Date: April 25, 2011 Posts: 154	handgun effectiveness The goal in self defence is to make the assailent change his behavior. Just showing a gun has been effective for me. My mother used to run horses and cattle out of the yard with ratshot. It is not uncommon in the country for people to use 22's on large troublesome animals. It works on people too. They quit messing arround. Any anamal or person shot with a 22 is hurt probably badly hurt. When doped up people take multiple large rounds it is more of a testament of the power of the drugs than the lack of power of the gun. __________________ olafhardt

January 3, 2009, 02:29 PM	#27
Brit Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2005 Location: Orlando FL Posts: 1,934	How about making it as simple as it can get, shoot whom ever, with whatever, a whole lot!

February 17, 2009, 12:48 AM	#28
Claude Werner Junior Member Join Date: February 17, 2009 Location: Hotel Carlton Posts: 8	Well, I did the study because when I looked for something definitive on the subject to give my students all I found was a bunch of anecdotes or conjecture and speculation. The anecdotes usually took the form of: "I had friend on the force who knew an officer in another town, who heard about such and such an incident." The conjecture was mostly pulled out of the person's fourth point of contact based on reading gun magazines or the ErrorNet. My Analysis has some gaping holes in it but I still haven't found anything better or even as good. Please don't point me to SOP-9 or LEOKA; as a professional researcher, the holes in both and/or faulty analysis that they engender is too much for me to bear. :barf: The difference in situational dynamics between private citizen incidents and LE incidents is too large to be ignored. Absolutely apples and oranges. If anyone has done a valid study of the nature, not quantity, of private citizen incidents, I would love to hear about it. BTW, it was a woman who shot the lion.

February 17, 2009, 01:06 PM	#31
Claude Werner Junior Member Join Date: February 17, 2009 Location: Hotel Carlton Posts: 8	Kathy, I first published it on an Internet Forum (frankly I don't remember which) because I was so fed up with the mis/disinformation I saw over the years. I wrote it a couple of years before I wrote my article for CCM.

February 17, 2009, 01:16 PM	#32
OldMarksman Staff Join Date: June 8, 2008 Posts: 4,022	What The Armed Citizen does not and cannot chronicle is how many assaults are not attempted because the would-be assailant is deterred by the possibility that the would-be victim is armed.

September 4, 2011, 12:25 AM	#41
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	great post thanks

September 4, 2011, 01:58 AM	#42
Achilles11B Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2010 Posts: 595	Hold on, hold on... ...a lion? __________________ Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.

September 4, 2011, 03:32 AM	#43
shootniron Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: Georgia Posts: 1,599	I find these 2 categories to be the most interesting. They tell me that I do not necessarily need to carry a gun to thwart an attack of even multiple assailants. Body Carry Type of Location No Yes Business 69% 31% Home 94% 6% Public 49% 51% In or around Vehicle 65% 35% Overall 80% 20% Multiple Assailants Type of Location NO YES Business 76% 24% Home 72% 28% Public 62% 38% Retail Business 52% 48% In or Around Vehicle 49% 51% Overall 64% 36% I think that I will carry my gun anyway...