Okay SMEs, what should this woman have done?

[NMBigfoot02]

I have had a couple of posts and several PMs asking for more info ref my door kicking comments. I'm going to post something on it's own ref that, and I have been asked to write something up for the Ballistic Radio site.

More to follow when I get a chance to write that up properly.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the matter.

[David Armstrong]

Yes, but isn't this a function of both the anecdotal nature of these events and the data collection?

For, example, I recently reviewed a long term analysis of the use of firearms in bear attacks. The data showed handguns to be slightly more effective than long guns in stopping an attack, and various other findings on caliber and otherwise that any experienced hunter of large animals would know to be illogical. So do I ditch my 45-70 with Garrett hard cast ammo in exchange for a .357 revolver with over the counter JHP ammo, based on the "data?"

While caliber/ammo/holster/weapon selection might not have jumped out to you amongst all the different variables in the shootings you studied, I have no doubt if we held the other variables constant, varied just caliber/ammo/holster/weapon selection, and had a large enough sample, those variables would be significant.

Without looking at the data on bear attacks I can't address the findings, although given the results I would certainly question the data because, as you say, experienced hunters know the results to be illogical. Regarding civilian CCW use we find the opposite, with trainer after trainer pointing out that it is not the equipment that determines the outcome nearly as much as other issues. When data from diverse sources, collected with diverse methods, collected over a wide period of time and a wide range of incidents all tend to reflect a common set of findings, I tend to believe that data PARTICULARLY when it also meets the logical considerations as well as the data-driven conclusions.

[GJM]

Without looking at the data on bear attacks I can't address the findings, although given the results I would certainly question the data because, as you say, experienced hunters know the results to be illogical. Regarding civilian CCW use we find the opposite, with trainer after trainer pointing out that it is not the equipment that determines the outcome nearly as much as other issues. When data from diverse sources, collected with diverse methods, collected over a wide period of time and a wide range of incidents all tend to reflect a common set of findings, I tend to believe that data PARTICULARLY when it also meets the logical considerations as well as the data-driven conclusions.

David, so I am clear, is it your belief that if we were to have a large sample study, hold all variables except caliber/holster/ammo/platform constant, that variations in caliber/holster/ammo/platform would not materially change the outcome? And, if you believe caliber/holster/ammo/platform would not materially change the outcome is this for all shooters, unskilled shooters, and/or skilled shooters?

[ToddG]

Regarding civilian CCW use we find the opposite, with trainer after trainer pointing out that it is not the equipment that determines the outcome nearly as much as other issues.

And yet trainer after trainer tend to be pretty choosy about the guns and ammo they carry every day.

As GJM keeps trying to point out, there's a big difference between "other factors are more important" and "your factors are unimportant."

[BLR]

Without looking at the data on bear attacks I can't address the findings, although given the results I would certainly question the data because, as you say, experienced hunters know the results to be illogical. Regarding civilian CCW use we find the opposite, with trainer after trainer pointing out that it is not the equipment that determines the outcome nearly as much as other issues. When data from diverse sources, collected with diverse methods, collected over a wide period of time and a wide range of incidents all tend to reflect a common set of findings, I tend to believe that data PARTICULARLY when it also meets the logical considerations as well as the data-driven conclusions.

Who is "we?"

As a side note, there are lessons to be learned here.

To take a page from aviation, the 3 most useless things in a SD encounter?
1. A gun not on your person
2. ???
3. ???

[TCinVA]

The ability to produce a firearm as this individual was breaking into the house would have likely changed the dynamics of the situation all by itself regardless of whether the woman produced an AR15 or a Ruger LCP.

Likely.

...but we come right back to the reality that all self defense situations do not merely require pulling a gun. Some of them require actually using it...and when it comes to a shooting problem a Ruger LCP is a decidedly inferior tool compared to, say, a Glock 17.

From there we spin on endlessly in a debate that's been done at least half a dozen other times here.

[Kyle Reese]

In custody - http://www.nydailynews.com/police-ar...icle-1.1385563

[NickA]

In custody - http://www.nydailynews.com/police-ar...icle-1.1385563

Outstanding, and I'm positively shocked that he has a long rap sheet.
Of course if that lady's house hadn't been on his way to church I'm sure this wouldn't have happened

[Maple Syrup Actual]

And to think he was just turning his life around. I'm sure his relatives would be happy to explain.

[Tamara]

And to think he was just turning his life around. I'm sure his relatives would be happy to explain.

As any city-dweller can tell you, just turning your life around is the second most dangerous thing you can do, right behind just standing there, minding your own business.