The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 12, 2007, 12:54 PM   #1
matthew temkin
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
Civilian Combat Stats

Interesting article on this by Ed Lovette in the February issue of Combat Handguns.
(The data is from Mr. Lovette's own research and I would love to see the from where it came.)


!) Location--vast majority happen in the victims home or place of business.

2) Lighting Conditions--Victim usually has the chance to get the lights on.

3) Distance--0-10 feet. Most between 6-10 feet.

4) Duration---actual shooting was over in seconds or a fraction of seconds.

5) Physical contact rarely involved but when it did was exceptionally violent.

6) Number of shots fired was often one but an avjerage of three.

7) Movement--movement was usually to retrieve the pistol and then to confirm the problem.
There was no "pieing" or searching, no moving while shooting or lateral movement to avoid gunfire.

8) Use of security equipment ( OC spray, knife, flashlight etc)..NONE!!!

9) Use of Cover--Almost non existant.

10) Firing positions---Shots fired by the Armed Citizen (AC) were most frequently from the standing position, several were on their back in bed, only one fired using the bed as cover.

11) Type of Weapon Used.. AC overwelmingly used a .38 revolver.

12) Response of Bad Guy When Shot---He most often stopped fighting and ran off, closely followed by stopping fighting and falling down. When the AC fired a contact shot into the bad guys torso/neck the fight was usually over very quickly.

13) Verbal Exchange Between AC and Bad Guy---Almost always.

14) Training by AC---Overwhelmingly none, followed by a small number who had taken a CCW course and a very small amount who had fired a handgun while in the military.
matthew temkin is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 01:37 PM   #2
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Some of the elements are very similar to an Executive Summary of the Armed Citizen page that looked at about 5 years of stories. Some other pieces seem to be very close to a study done of justified homicides in HOuston in the early 1990s.

A few things to note:
The fight builds up, with time to talk, turn on lights, go get guns, etc. Once it starts it is over quickly without multiple shots, reloads, etc.

The lowly .38 is still the weapon of choice.

Little or no training is the norm.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 02:49 PM   #3
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
Interesting.

There are some gaps that should be filled in though.
  • elapsed time of the whole encounter (not just shooting)
  • The percentage of the attackers known to the victim
  • Types of crimes involved (burglary, robbery, sexual assaults)
  • Frequency of the attacker armed with a firearm.
  • Frequency of the attacker armed with "other" weapon (bat, knife, tool, etc)
  • Distance in outdoor vs. indoor conflicts

This does tend to confirm what most of us know. The bad guys are not idiots and when shot at will often flee, wounded or not.

That encounters with seriously "high" (drugged) individuals are infrequent.

Also, the "street tactic" I've most often heard of is that once a physical attack begins, the attacker throws rapid-fire punches to keep the defender disoriented until they aren't able to function. If someone moves in to grab and attack you should presume they will not stop until you are out cold (which presents a life-threatening situation).

There is nothing "inadequate" or "marginal" about the .38 Special cartridge. (This article makes me want to go buy a Model 10! )
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 07:55 PM   #4
Dwight55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,568
Thanks, Matt, . . . I needed some good reading tonight, . . . you provided it.

May God bless,
Dwight
__________________
www.dwightsgunleather.com
If you can breathe, . . . thank God!
If you can read, . . . thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!
Dwight55 is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 09:44 PM   #5
Nick Fox
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2007
Posts: 3
Tom Givens of Targetmaster in Atlanta wrote on another board about the author of that study being in his range and discussing the study with him. He said that the figures were compiled from areas where where very few private citizens carry outside their homes, so of course most of the shootings listed occurred inside their homes.

Tom wrote that in his area, Nashville, a fair number of people routinely carry a pistol, and the results are different.

At the NTI this year he did a lecture and power point on seven shooting incidents that his students had been involved in during recent years. The summary of results of those shootings was quite different from what Ed Lovette listed.

4 of 7 incidents involved an armed robbery by 1 or 2 suspects
3 occurred in Mall parking lots
Students- 1 female, 3 male whites, 3 male blacks
Shootees- 7 male black, 1 male white, 2 male Hispanics
3 of 7 incidents involved 2 suspects
29 shots fired by students in the 7 incidents listed. That averages to about 4 shots per incident.
3 incidents involved 4 or more shots fired
Students’ guns- 9mm- 2 incidents .40 S&W- 5 incidents
Nick Fox is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 10:42 PM   #6
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Givens' insight into the Combat Handguns study sounds good. Obviously, there were some significant biases in the study that should stand out in a glaring manner so as to indicate something isn't right.

There are too many incidents of folks using other weapons such as knives and pepper spray to believe his findings of NONE would be representative of what really happens. So too with the use of .38 revolvers. Too many folks use semi-autos and long guns.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 10:45 PM   #7
matthew temkin
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
How are they different?
From what I am reading is that both Tom Givens's students (He is in Memphis, BTW) and those in Lovette's study won their encounters.
The only difference is that Tom's students were on the street.
The fact is that very few people choose to lawfully carry a gun.
Many stop doing so once the novelty wears off.
Lovette's stats are in line with what is reported by the NRA evey month via their magazines.
matthew temkin is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 11:19 PM   #8
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
I'm assuming that people who sought instruction from Tom Givens are more likely to be fulltime gun carriers and general "gun people". That probably accounts for the differences between sampled groups, as Rangemaster's classes are probably geared towards the semi-auto and the type of person that would pay to attend them is the type who is more likely to actually be carrying out on the street.
ATW525 is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 11:31 PM   #9
Nick Fox
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2007
Posts: 3
I took a look at Lovettes article. It dealt exclusively with people who kept guns in the home not carried them. My takeaway from it is that if you have good locks and alarms and dont open your door for strangers buys you arre less likely to have to shoot intruders and it buys you more time to get to your gun .

Givens figures come from former students so it is safe to say that they probably had more training and practiced more than a lot of people who carry guns.

Matthew Temkin wrote "The fact is that very few people choose to lawfully carry a gun."

Over the last few years a lot of states have made it possible for regular people to carry concealled handguns. There is a reason for that. There are more stats now that allow cocealled carry than there are that dont
Nick Fox is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 11:48 PM   #10
Nick Fox
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2007
Posts: 3
"11) Type of Weapon Used.. AC overwelmingly used a .38 revolver"

Lovette explained in the article that it was for a snubnose revolver class. It looks like he chose certain civilian shootings that fit a criteria to include in his study: shootings that took place in the home with .38 revolvers.
Nick Fox is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 07:13 AM   #11
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Interesting. Well then, those are .38 revolver civilian shooting stats and not generalized shooting stats of civilians. Temkin's summary seemed to have missed that little critical facet. But that would explain why folks didn't use other guns or weapons because it was a biased sample of revolver incidents.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 08:31 AM   #12
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
Quote:
Interesting. Well then, those are .38 revolver civilian shooting stats and not generalized shooting stats of civilians. Temkin's summary seemed to have missed that little critical facet. But that would explain why folks didn't use other guns or weapons because it was a biased sample of revolver incidents.
What evidence do you have that Lovette's data is biased in some way towards revolvers?
ATW525 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 11:07 AM   #13
a10t2
Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2005
Location: CO
Posts: 82
Quote:
only one fired using the bed as cover.
Nitpicking I know, but a mattress is not cover, it's concealment. I wonder if anyone's ever been killed in a home invasion because they thought they could duck behind the sofa like in the movies...
a10t2 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 02:24 PM   #14
Yellowfin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
I wonder what larger sample sizes say. Whatever the sample, I hope to never be among the data.
Yellowfin is offline  
Old November 14, 2007, 02:00 PM   #15
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
At the NTI this year he did a lecture and power point on seven shooting incidents that his students had been involved in during recent years.
I'm going to suggest that almost by definition Tom's info is outside of the norm, as it is restricted to a small number of shooting by his students. Most shooters will not have been students of any formal training, much less as quality as the stuff Tom does.

Quote:
So too with the use of .38 revolvers. Too many folks use semi-autos and long guns.
I don't know. I've been teaching CCW classes for over a decade, and the .38 has been the dominant gun in class by a huge margin. In the NRA Executive Summary, even with long guns available, the .38 was still picked over 60% of the time.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old November 14, 2007, 03:58 PM   #16
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
Anyone else think it would be highly interesting to see a sort of "Uniform Report" system (like the FBI's Uniform Crime Report) for reporting defensive gun uses?

It'd have to gather information without disclosing personally-identifiable data, however. A whole bunch of interesting information could be obtained and analyzed.

Just a thought.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old November 14, 2007, 04:52 PM   #17
Mannlicher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida & Miami
Posts: 3,207
In all the accounts of Armed Citizens foiling bad guys in the National Rifleman, and of the accounts I see in the Florida papers, and TV stations, I have yet to see mentioned that the Citizen used a high dollar, high tech handgun or rifle, or was a graduate of Front Sight or Thunder Ranch.
The accounts that I see show Joe Sixpack or his Aunt using a regular gun to do what is necessary.
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan
Mannlicher is offline  
Old November 14, 2007, 06:05 PM   #18
matthew temkin
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
My read on this exactly, Mannlicher.
I am not opposed to training, but a good question would be as to just how much training is enough?
matthew temkin is offline  
Old November 14, 2007, 06:58 PM   #19
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
Let's keep in mind that the Armed Citizen columns are generated from newspaper articles and we all know how perfectly accurate and thorough reporters are when covering gun-related issues. :barf:

My view is that unless the citizen himself provides that information to the reporter or police, it probably won't get included.

That said, I think a vast majority of cases are a result of surprising the attacker. People are so routinely defenseless that they don't expect Grandma to be packin' a hogleg, much less use it.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old November 15, 2007, 10:20 AM   #20
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
I think Kleck had a breakdown of gun type and DGU. This may be out of my butt - but, it was something like 2:1 handgun vs. long gun.

Given about 1-4% of the population of a state gets a shall issue DGU - what percent of them actually train like those in Given's sample? Very few.

I heard Tom's talk also - very interesting.

BTW - about high end handgun usage - in San Antonio, a famous but infamous boxer with a long criminal history broke into a house to do ill to the woman inside and was taken down with a Glock 21. That's a 'real' gun.

On the other hand, a restaurant owner was attacked at his front door and won the day with a 25 ACP cheapie.

In both cases, the BG took rounds, survived but stopped the crime.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 15, 2007, 07:44 PM   #21
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
Quote:
What evidence do you have that Lovette's data is biased in some way towards revolvers?
Well, it was stated that...
Quote:
11) Type of Weapon Used.. AC overwelmingly used a .38 revolver.
I see or read defensive accounts of shootings and they are not overwhelmingly by .38 revolvers. They aren't even overwhelmingly by revolvers.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 15, 2007, 09:41 PM   #22
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
Quote:
just how much training is enough?
Matt,

It's kind of hard to use stats to decide how much training is enough.

What is more, things like ones size, strength, stamina, skill, speed, money (yea guys, money cause it cost to train alot), plus such things as intrest in training are just some of the factors one has to face when deciding just how much training is enough. Not to mention where one lives, works, drives, and such that expose them to danger. I mean bankers and jewlry shop owners might want and need far more skills than others. It all depends on the individual.

Just how much training is enough for what? Stopping an attack without guns (very much can happen.) Stop an attack inside ones house? Stop multiple attackers? I mean the list can go on. Even the newspapers, for what they are worth, deplict many different types of attacks.

Sure people with no training have sucessfuly stopped BGs, and super experts have failed to stop BGs, but like the saying goes, "the race my not go to the stronger or swifter, but that's the way to bet".

I also caution people here to realise the newspapers are not a super reliable way to get actual incident reports (they get so much else wrong, well....) About the only thing I can say about them is they get the jest of the incident.

There is no defining exactly just how much training is enough. There are exceptional circumstances. I sure would not tell a student, "Just take my SD course and you will be safe on the steets or in your home, guaranteed."

So do you, Matt, guarantee to people you teach that what you teach will stop any attack to happen to them? I mean flat say, "this is enough, it makes you good to go, lean and mean?"

I sure don't. I enourage everyone I teach to go as far in skill building as they can within their means and ability. For it's up to the individual to decide how much training is enough!
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old November 15, 2007, 09:57 PM   #23
matthew temkin
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 363
I tell my students that if they want guarantees then they should go to Midas Mufflers.
No one can, in good faith, guarantee a win in close combat.
Even W.E. Fairbairn promised his students no more than a fighting chance of coming out victorious.
But most people--especially if they are not in the military/Law Enforcement or high risk civilian employement--have a self imposed limit on just how much training they are willing to invest in.
Naturally I would hope that they practice what I teach them, yet even this is probably not going to happen.
So--for the possibility of the typical armed combat that a homeowner will likely face, just how much--and what type--of training is enough?
Quite frankly I do not have an answer so I would like to hear some instructors chime in on this.
matthew temkin is offline  
Old November 17, 2007, 03:14 PM   #24
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
Quote:
So do you, Matt, guarantee to people you teach that what you teach will stop any attack to happen to them? I mean flat say, "this is enough, it makes you good to go, lean and mean?"
I submit that any instructor who tells you this has his head in a dark, humid place.

Quote:
But most people--especially if they are not in the military/ Law Enforcement or high risk civilian employement--have a self imposed limit on just how much training they are willing to invest in.
The limiting factors are usually time and money. It gets costly to go through some of the training courses and even more to run through better ones.

The few folks I have helped train I told them that I can only help them be better at handling and shooting their guns. That instills some confidence and the more confident you are in your ability to hit your target, the more likely you are to prevail when you must do so.

My thoughts are this --
  1. Some training is better than none.
  2. Bad training is worse than no training
  3. The proper mindset must be taught clearly and concisely.
    We don't shoot to win, we shoot to stay alive.
  4. Basic training includes shooting, reloading, stance, ammo management, tactical use of cover or concealment, knowing when to shoot, knowing when not to shoot and control of a situation (surrendered suspect or shooting scene).
  5. Given the basics, most people will prevail in a fight for three reasons -
    A) Surprise - their opponent likely expects an unarmed victim.
    B) They have confidence in their ability to use their firearm.
    C) Most attackers are not willing to get hurt or die for what they want.
  6. Some "advanced" training builds more confidence in their ability to handle different situations. Here is where you learn to engage multiple targets, moving targets, fire while seated, more emphasis on point-shooting at close range, fast reloading and malfunction drills.
  7. Some of the "tactical" training is more than is necessary for most "average people" who will never need to perform house-clearings, engage 6 or more people, fight through a street-ambush from windows or similar firefights.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old November 18, 2007, 06:14 PM   #25
Hard Ball
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 1999
Location: California
Posts: 3,925
" Distance--0-10 feet. Most between 6-10 feet.

Duration---actual shooting was over in seconds or a fraction of seconds.

Physical contact rarely involved but when it did was exceptionally "

Given these stats it seems that both formal training and practice sessions should place far more emphasis on point shooting and far less on using the sights.
__________________
"I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemeis domestic or foreign WHOMSOEVER."
Hard Ball is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08693 seconds with 8 queries