Capacity, Hit Rate, Multiple Assailants and some thoughts...

[481]

Thanks, Nanuk. That makes two of us.

Originally Posted by Nanuk

Carry enough gun, with enough ammo and master the gun you carry. Get training and realistic practice.

Now there's a model!

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.

[j3ffr0]

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.

It's all about assumptions and context, and everyone's assumptions and context are different. However, an assumption is not a fact. An assumption is a probability for people who don't like numbers... just a guess without numbers to back it up.

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.

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.

Agreed. No amount of ammo will either.

[Nanuk]

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.

Thats the point. Self defense is a system, the lethal option is one part of that system.

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

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Nanuk: 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.

No!

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.

[481]

Originally Posted by Oldmarksman

One chooses the hit probability.

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.

Originally Posted by Oldmarksman

Don't like the model itself? Develop your own, if you like.

No point in it. It is a waste of time for all of the reasons given above. I'd rather spend my time training and practicing drills, honing my skills. "Button time" on the calculator does not translate to "trigger time" behind the gun. You- no one- needs a model to tell them that 5 rounds < 15 rounds or that no reload < 1 reload.

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.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 481: 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.

True fact.

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.

All this hypothesizing, this fantasizing, it is all just mathematical busy work.

Not if it makes a point, which it does.

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.

Only for those who do not understand what they are looking at.

No point in it. It is a waste of time for all of the reasons given above.

So I said.

You- no one- needs a model to tell them that 5 rounds < 15 rounds or that no reload < 1 reload.

Alrighty then.

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.

[481]

Originally Posted by Oldmarksman

John did not set out to try to make reliable, accurate projections.

That is quite apparent.

Originally Posted by Oldmarksman

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.

The model doesn't tell you anthing that you don't know already- it simply gives you a "probability" that 5 rounds might be enough.

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.

Originally Posted by Oldmarksman

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.

No kidding. Having more rounds is better than having fewer. Now there's an earth-shattering revelation!

You need a model to tell you that?

Originally Posted by Oldmarksman

He succeeded very well.

He sure did. He succeeded at complicating a simple guess with lots of unnecessary math.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 481: The model doesn't tell you anthing that you don't know already- it simply gives you a "probability" that 5 rounds might be enough.

Really? That's all it tells you? Look again.

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?

No kidding. Having more rounds is better than having fewer. Now there's an earth-shattering revelation!

You need a model to tell you that?

No, no more than I need one to know that "5 rounds < 15 rounds or that no reload < 1 reload."

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.

[481]

Originally Posted by Oldmarksman

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.

And you needed a model to tell you that?

Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by Oldmarksman

I am one of two whom I know of who have changed my habits as a result.

...I see that you did.

Nevermind.

[Mike Irwin]

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.