View Single Post
Old April 4, 2008, 12:14 PM   #53
David Armstrong
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
The report that I brought forward in #3 does not suggest that only 3 or 4 rounds were fired. It suggests that gunfights are fluid and that each shot string measure 3 or 4 shots. every time a lag occured such as a reload or movement it was measued as a new incident.
And I think that illustrates a big part of the problem that Glenn identifies with "Criminological stats are all over the place and very suspect." Your report makes one suggestion. Another report will suggest something totally different. Maybe we are measuring different things. Maybe the way we measure is different. For example, I've run across 4 different ways of counting "gunfights" in the literature. Thus, the stats are all over the place. I do believe you find certain trends and commonalities, which goes to the issue of the shape of the curve and the extremes of the distribution and so on.

NYPD was not gathering data on real life events, they were gathering data on the effectiveness of their firearms training.
Sorry, but that is just blatantly incorrect. By gathering data on real life events they used that to develop their firearms training. In fact, the NYPD was rather straightforward with the early SOP 9 documents in saying that there was no correlation between the training and the success in actual shootings.

"If you have one foot in a campfire and one foot on a block of ice, on average you're comfortable".
Actually, Tom, I'd suggest that on average you are not at all comfortable<G>!

In 2 cases, the defender fired 8 and 11 shots. These were above the average, and neither would have been able to do that with a five shot gun.
But that is of so limited use, Tom, that it becomes virtually meaningless, as you said. A dataset of 10 cases literally has no significance in discussing this, IMO, other than to present an anecdote. Anecdotal information is nice, but for analysis purposes it means little or nothing, and I think that is the point others are trying to make.
David Armstrong is offline  
Page generated in 0.04838 seconds with 7 queries