|
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 13, 2012, 12:23 PM | #126 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2012
Posts: 1,078
|
481
So You are saying that because a mathematical model can't be used to predict ever single variable that might happen in a gun fight that it is useless? So, since the mathematical models that were used to send men to the Moon or the Curiosity Rover to Mars couldn't possibly account for every single variable, that they shouldn't be used and we should just "wing it"? Understand what a mathematical model is for. It allows a method for calculating the statistical outcome of a certain set of variables. While it can't account for reality, it can point someone in the general direction of thought processes and either back up, or dash certain "common sense". There are A LOT of people out there that carry a gun on a daily basis with 5 shots with no reload who believe that they adequately armed for any situation and don't need any "high cap tacticool crap" to defend themselves. What this model demonstrates is potential fallacies with this line of thinking. If someone can perform at an increased performance level than the inputs into this model, under these circumstances, they may be perfectly right. It might actually be like the saloon scene in Unforgiven. To be perfectly honest, the likelihood of sucess of a single person in a gun battle with 2 determined attackers is probably even less than what John posted unless there are some other factors involved. Like someone runs away, they shoot worse than you, you have cover, weapon malfunctions, etc. Most of the time, just the presence of the weapon will be enough to end hostilities, but that isn't something that I would want to count on. I think it is a wonderful tool for getting people to look at their circumstances and possibly "try this at home" with their shooting practice. Set up a couple of targets, draw and fire after having done 15 pushups or running to a table. Then try it one handed or with their off hand, or from the ground as though they had been actually attacked 1st. They may find that they need a different plan or they my get great comfort in their newfound abilities. To Poo Poo statistical modeling because it doesn't fit reality is short sighted and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how it is used and how results should be interpreted.
__________________
I am no longer participating in gun forums. Good luck. |
August 13, 2012, 12:59 PM | #127 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have a winner! Why should I accept such a thing if it can't account for reality? 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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by 481; August 13, 2012 at 01:30 PM. |
|||||||
August 13, 2012, 02:12 PM | #128 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2012
Posts: 1,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore, if you take the average hit percentage of police officers and apply it statistically only taking into account the factors of the number of rounds and hit percentage and see that it is statistically nearly impossible to prevail with only 5 shots, maybe someone will take that to heart and decide to practice realistically, and arm themselves realistically and use tactics best suited to their weapon of choice. I don't see why anyone would have issue with this. It isn't supposed to be reality. But if it makes just one single person do something to improve their chances in real life, it wasn't a waste of time.
__________________
I am no longer participating in gun forums. Good luck. |
|||
August 13, 2012, 02:27 PM | #129 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by 481; August 13, 2012 at 02:32 PM. |
|||
August 13, 2012, 02:29 PM | #130 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
August 13, 2012, 02:56 PM | #131 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
I said "may or may not hold true" not "won't hold true under all conditions". Using what I said within an incorrect context is a faulty argument device. So much for rational debate, huh? Quote:
|
||
August 13, 2012, 02:59 PM | #132 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2012
Posts: 1,078
|
Quote:
He laid it out and demonstrated statistically just 5 rounds with no reload might not be enough with the assumptions/inputs he stated. Now if someone looks at that and says, "Wow. I actually can't hit the bullseye with all N# shots in my XXXX gun with a 2 handed hold on a square range 100% of the time on demand with only 1 target. Maybe I should seek competent training and/or practice more, or choose a different weapon than what I use today." That is a good thing. In reality if you don't "Go stupid places, with stupid people and do stupid stuff" you probably won't need a gun at all, and the times that you do, just having it and maybe firing a shot or 2 will be enough to end a confrontation. But "reality" isn't what this is about. It is statistical probablities given a specific set of variables. I hope people look at it and it prompts them to think about what it actually means without getting to far into the probabilities of those specific variables happening and use it to evaluate their own Mindset, Tactics, Skill and Gear.
__________________
I am no longer participating in gun forums. Good luck. |
|
August 13, 2012, 03:11 PM | #133 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
481, you keep making comments like "so much for rational debate..."
You accuse others of emotionalism, or of attacks... But you keep using words like "silly," "foolish," "loser," etc. You also don't give straight answers. In an earlier post, you claimed you had only said you were through responding to me; however, after reviewing earlier posts of yours, you had said you were through with "this silly wild goose chase," and other such things before I had joined the conversation. And, of course, after specifically (so you claim) saying you meant you were no longer going to respond to me, you responded to me. Color me surprised. You aren't attempting a rational debate. You aren't trying to contribute to discussion. You are poo-pooing a basic statistical model, for its being a basic statistical model. You are behaving in an obnoxious manner, and accusing others of behaving obnoxiously. It is pointless for anybody to argue with you, as your argument will change each time. By the way, my first post, which you found rude, etc, was based on your previous arguments, and your signature line about being in "a state of reality." In other words, it was derived from your inputs - so your reaction to it was interesting. I am no longer going to argue with you in this thread, because other than this recent sidetrack (aka 481), it has been a good discussion and I would prefer not to derail it, by feeding your standup routine. |
August 13, 2012, 03:12 PM | #134 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
And by mere fiat, one can change those assumptions/inputs to justify that that very same arrangement will be enough. This is just another example of paralysis via over-analysis. You can make even the simplest decisions far more intricate than they need to be. The return for all of the extra effort isn't there. Quote:
Last edited by 481; August 13, 2012 at 03:18 PM. |
||
August 13, 2012, 03:14 PM | #135 | |||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
2. As I understood your arguments, the context was correct. Throughout the thread, you have made comments such as: Quote:
Quote:
So which is it - are you saying that I cannot control the amount of ammunition I carry with a high enough certainty to make it practical for the purposes of our discussion or were you being pedantic and insisting on absolute, unshakeable certainty in the amount of ammo I choose to carry while simultaneously complaining about a lack of rational debate and taking things out of context? |
|||
August 13, 2012, 03:29 PM | #136 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Bart,
This comment, offered up by CrowHunter, is reflective of the problem that I have with using a statistical model to quantify the highly variable tangibles (and intangibles) that are involved in a gun fight. Quote:
Sure, it's fun to play with numbers and calculators, but the only answers that matter are the ones that actually occur. I am not saying that you cannot play "what if" 'til your heart's content, but to think that you are going to get real answers from numerical fantasizing is a "fool's errand". Quote:
Last edited by 481; August 13, 2012 at 03:39 PM. |
||
August 13, 2012, 03:58 PM | #137 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Of course, all of this presumes that we can predict our "hit rates" under the duress of a gun fight to a reasonable degree of precision and certainty. I, for one, cannot.
|
August 13, 2012, 04:07 PM | #138 | ||||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I found the framework here to be quite useful for planning purposes despite the uncertainty around the numbers. For example, if you shoot as well as the average big city police officer and have two attackers (the most common assault scenario), 12 rounds will give you a ~50% chance. 10 rounds will give you a ~36% chance. If you happen to be someone carrying a compact Glock with no spare, that is an illuminating difference spelled out a lot more clearly in math than it can be in words. I think in terms of a rough analysis of how much ammo is enough, the model presented here makes a good planning tool. And like most planning tools, it is easy enough to hedge uncertainty by lowering your expectations if you don't like the assumptions used here. Quote:
And the numbers really need not be precise; because unlike the Price is Right, we don't have to be the closest to the actual number. We just need to not go over it. |
||||
August 13, 2012, 04:20 PM | #139 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2012
Posts: 1,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
That is part of the power of statistics. It allows you to model different inputs quickly and easily once the model is built. It allows you to get a good indication of how things probably will happen given the initial assumptions. But that doesn't mean it reflects reality exactly, it doesn't need to for what it does. So, your argument, in a nutshell, is that it is a waste of time trying to model what could happen in a situation where you had to defend yourself against 2 assailants becaue it is obvious that a person shouldn't be carrying a 5 shot revolver with no reload. Why shouldn't they?
__________________
I am no longer participating in gun forums. Good luck. |
||
August 13, 2012, 04:36 PM | #140 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
That carrying a 5 shot revolver with no reload is a bad idea no matter the number of assailants I meet requires no model to ascertain. Why make the process more complicated than it need be? Quote:
That 30-40% hit rate average is not a guarantee. I'll bet that within that study you'll find at least one poor guy who couldn't get a shot off for whatever reason. So much for the average. Last edited by 481; August 13, 2012 at 04:50 PM. |
||
August 13, 2012, 04:48 PM | #141 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
I wish it were that simple. The numbers had better be precise because what goes down on the asphalt is staying on the asphalt. It's your life to gamble with. I can't delude myself into thinking that this model tells me anything that is not already apparent without the model and the risk of depending upon it for all that is dear to me is not an option. It could offer an "incorrect" prediction just as easily as it offers a "correct" prediction and there is no way to say for sure until it happens. I can get to the same place by just flipping a coin- "heads" I make it, "tails" I don't. |
|
August 13, 2012, 05:25 PM | #142 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2012
Posts: 1,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
Or are you, like most people, making an accidental statistical analysis without actually putting pen to paper or punching a calculator? Based on your "common sense" approach, there is no way to know that 5 shots won't be "enough" until the event actually happens. So what makes this analysis suspect but your personal analysis "common sense"?
__________________
I am no longer participating in gun forums. Good luck. |
||
August 13, 2012, 06:32 PM | #143 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
Quote:
You've got a good sense of humor and that's gotta count for something. And I didn't need a model to figure that out either. Quote:
No model required. |
|||
August 13, 2012, 07:20 PM | #144 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
The question at hand is , how many rounds should one prudently carry? And no, that is not an "assumption." It is an independent variable, to be decided upon in advance. Once the decision is made and acted upon, the number is a fact. Most of us have been making that decision based on rather subjective thought processes. Few of us have ever really analyzed the "what ifs" that, one way or the other, will ultimately lead to the "answers that will actually occur", which in this case are whether we will survive a violent encounter. After endless back and forth discussion of whether five rounds are "enough" or whether one might "feel comfortable" with six, John decided to apply a simple analytical approach to test the reasonableness of some of the opinions offered on the subject. Fact is, one will never know how many rounds are sufficient until the event occurs, and as I have said before on many occasions, even then the number cannot be relied upon for a subsequent encounter. But that does not mean that we cannot do some assessment, based on certain assumptions, of what a reasonable number of rounds might be. Many people have been happy with five. John's calculations show that five rounds is probably far from the best number to head out of the house with, though you say that that was obvious to you from the beginning. And John's projection only shows a probability. If one doesn't know how to assess that kind of result, one should not try to use the numbers. Four rounds might suffice; one may need nine; but how does one decide? How does one decide? On anything? With projections base on assumptions. The key lies in testing and assessing those assumptions. That takes up back one more time to this: That's true for everything, but one has to make decisions, and to do so one has to make some assumptions. If one is looking for a bank loan or for investments to launch a business venture, one is going to have to make and support some assumptions, one is going to have to show some calculations, and one is going to have to decide upon a plan. And even if one had enough money to start on his or her own, one will have to make a lot of decisions. and those will require projections based on assumptions. Yes, there will be considerable uncertainty in the projections, and yes, the ultimate results will vary, but no, you won't even get to first base if you simply tell your banker or investors that they will just have to see what occurs when all is said and done. Or if you prefer--the question of how many troops to commit to take an objective will have to be decided upon in advance, based on assumptions and projections and calculations. One cannot just throw up one's hands because there is uncertainty. The same thing applies here. One cannot simply say, "I'll just grab the gun the guy at the shop sold me. After all, I won't know whether five shots are sufficient until they are not". You have said, "That carrying a 5 shot revolver with no reload is a bad idea no matter the number of assailants I meet requires no model to ascertain." OK. Many people have offered the opinion that, because many gunfights are said to be over in three rounds, five should be plenty. It is for those people for whom John's calculations will likely prove illustrative. You obviously did not need them. Personally, I believe that John's contribution here has been among the best I have seen. By the way, I often carried a five shot revolver. Not any more. John's model is simplistic. One could make it more elegant, and one could put a lot more effort into assessing the hit rate assumptions based on extensive FoF simulations, but toward what end? The uncertainty in the number of hits required would remain very significant. John did not set out to create an accurate estimation tool. He set out to do what he said he set out to do, and I think he succeeded admirably. |
||
August 13, 2012, 07:23 PM | #145 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
August 13, 2012, 08:01 PM | #146 |
Member
Join Date: August 11, 2012
Location: Western Kentucky
Posts: 62
|
That's why I carry a 9mm that's 13+1 and a spare magazine with me. The ammo is JHP.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran - 1966-1970 USASA Carry Pistol - Glock Gen 3 23, .40 Caliber. Carry Pistol - Glock Gen 3 19, 9mm. Self Defense Stories |
August 13, 2012, 09:40 PM | #147 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 540
|
Quote:
|
|
August 13, 2012, 09:41 PM | #148 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
I carry a 5 shot "J: frame with two speed strips... Thats 17 rounds... and comfortable and easy to hide.
|
August 13, 2012, 10:31 PM | #149 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
Quote:
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
|
August 13, 2012, 10:50 PM | #150 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
I can see 481's problem with the process.
There is no real data, just 5 assumptions lumped together mathematically to prove a point. I do not disagree with the point, just the methodology. I have written a number of operational plans, in that context an assumption is more like; if we call for a fire truck we can assume that one will respond. It is an assumption of fact, not fantasy. Assumptions without fact will get you in trouble every time. the assumptions may be Correct for John, but not for everyone. Not everyone possesses the same skill level or the same ability to maintain a level head. Every shooting is different, was it at bad breath distance or 10 yards? That makes a huge difference in the amounts of hits, current LE data shows this. In the famous Miami FBI shootout, one agent missed 15 shots a bad breath distance, it happens. Carry enough gun, with enough ammo and master the gun you carry. Get training and realistic practice. Like Bill Jordan said, "There is no second place winner".
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
|
|