|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 14, 2012, 12:04 AM | #151 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Thanks, Nanuk. That makes two of us.
Quote:
As I've said before, if someone lacks the common sense to make these realizations, no amount of math is going to help them and they probably shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place. No amount of math can fix stupid. I am sure that JohnKSa's intentions are noble. The point (carry enough ammo) is a good one, but the methodology (e.g. SWAG) leaves much to be desired. |
|
August 14, 2012, 01:15 AM | #152 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
Depending on where we live and what's going on during any given time, we may or may not be able to safely assume the fire truck will come in time to help us. If we carry 5 and assume it will be enough, then we have to live with it if it's not. If we choose not to carry at all we live with that. And if we carry 50 and get taken out by a guy with a knife or pointy stick, because we were too lazy to train hand-to-hand, then we live with that. The only reason to cc a gun at all in the first place is "what if", statistics, models, or gut-feel and assumptions. I'm less likely to need a gun than many, but I'll carry what I damn well please whether it's 1 round or 50. John's data gives us all something to think about whether we chose to think or not, and his presentation of it is excellent. If anyone has any improved what-ifs or assumptions, either numeric or otherwise, then I'd welcome them. Quote:
|
||
August 14, 2012, 08:44 AM | #153 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Quote:
You cannot assign random hit probabilities to random people in random encounters, with other random people. People defy logic everyday. The numbers John generated give as much credence to a 380 ACP as it does to a 357 Magnum, but, that is another discussion. What the theory would indicate is that an untrained person has the same hit probability of a trained pro in the same situation. I cannot even wrap my little brain around that one. Stacking statistics and guesses is mental masturbation at its worst
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
|
August 14, 2012, 09:41 AM | #154 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
One chooses the hit probability. John chose one that can be supported, and one can choose another one, perhaps based on extensive simulation, but there is considerable variation around any average. John's purpose was not to make an accurate projection, but to see just how differing assumptions might affect the probabilities in the low round count range. For him and for many of us, the result was interesting. Don't like the assumptions? Use your own. Don't like the model itself? Develop your own, if you like. You could model distributions around the average hit probability for each shot, and around the mean number of shots needed to stop an attacker, if you wanted to. You could include other algorithms. I really do not think it would be worth the doing. The assumption regarding the number of hits required to stop an attacker involves so many uncertainties that the model would be little better than what we have now. And to display the output in an understandable manner manner would likely require 3D animation. No manner what one might do, there is considerable uncertainty, in terms of spread and distribution, in each of the input variables, except of course for the number of rounds carried which is a constant. And the result is only a probability. None of this speaks against the value of John's work. Far from it. A number of people had settled upon low round counts, based on reported average occurrences. John decided to test the distribution, just for his own benefit, and then he decided to share the results.... ...which indicated that starting with five rounds is demonstrably a high-risk proposition, no matter how much you vary the assumptions. I found it very helpful. I can certainly see how someone who carries thirty seven rounds would not gain anything from the exercise. |
|
August 14, 2012, 10:54 AM | #155 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
OM, You cannot choose your hit probability. In a real, honest-to-God gun fight, it will be whatever it is. You may miss every shot. You may make every shot. You might not have a chance to even attempt a shot. All this hypothesizing, this fantasizing, it is all just mathematical busy work. Lately, our thugs have taken to simply walking up to a robbery victim with their gun already in hand tucked behind their leg/buttock and shoving it into the victim's gut and firing a shot. Where's your "hit probability" now? If you encounter one of these vermin, it ain't gonna be like you are standing "toe-to-toe" and "face-to-face" trading shot-for-shot. Attempts at such modeling are exercises in futilty and they have the property of leading the unintiated and unknowing into the perception that they will have more control, know more about what is about to transpire, and expect something other than what they should from such a dynamic and infinitely unpredictable event. Quote:
Carry the most gun and as much ammo as you can and train often. Prepare for the worst, pray for the best. That's the "model" for sucess- no calculator needed. Last edited by 481; August 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM. |
||
August 14, 2012, 11:20 AM | #156 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Not very enlightening, but true. One chooses (and varies) an assumption of hit probability to learn something about its impact on the likely outcome. Just as one chooses an assumed sales volume to assess projected profitability. Yes, the sales volume will be what it will be--period. But one needs to know how the different variables will drive the results. Or, if you prefer, one estimates casualty rates when selecting from among alternative military plans. But the causalities will be what they will be. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But what the model showed us was that, no matter which reasonable assumptions one might choose, the prognosis with five rounds is markedly dimmer than many had believed, and that the situation improves markedly when a few rounds are added. John did not set out to try to make reliable, accurate projections. He simply wanted to know something about the validity of the claim that, since the average number of round expended in a defensive action is reportedly close to five, five should be good enough. He succeeded very well. |
|||||
August 14, 2012, 12:02 PM | #157 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
It took all that (the monstrous exercise in statistical gymnastics) to come up with a "definite maybe"? Hell, I coulda told you that without all of the mathematical pretentiousness and dancing 'round the bush. Watch... Five rounds might be good enough or it might not. See? Easy enough. Quote:
You need a model to tell you that? Quote:
Last edited by 481; August 14, 2012 at 12:44 PM. |
||||
August 14, 2012, 01:02 PM | #158 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
It shows what that probability is, within an order of magnitute and given the base assumptions, and it shows that if one varies those base assumptions within reasonable ranges, things do not really get any better. And it shows that that probability is frighteningly low. No, I did not know that already. Did you? Quote:
John showed more than that. He showed that no matter which reasonable assumptions one might choose, the prognosis with five rounds is markedly dimmer than many had believed, and that the situation improves markedly when a few rounds are added. That's not the same thing as saying that more are better than fewer. On more time: the prognosis with five rounds is markedly dimmer than many had believed, and the situation improves markedly when a few rounds are added. Wouldn't matter to you, considering how many rounds you carry, but we have had a number of people on this board saying, without having really thought it through analytically, that they "feel comfortable" with five rounds. I am one of two whom I know of who have changed my habits as a result. |
||
August 14, 2012, 02:26 PM | #159 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Oh, wait... Quote:
Nevermind. Last edited by 481; August 14, 2012 at 02:32 PM. |
||
August 14, 2012, 02:48 PM | #160 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,390
|
Let's tone it down a bit gentlemen.
If the rollyeyes guy is becoming a routine part of your discussion technique.... find a new technique.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
|
|