Untrained versus trained

[SouthNarc]

Okay kids something substantive!

I've had some old and new internet forum discussion regarding the necessity of training. Now personally I believe that all gun owners should be fit, do BJJ, and have a Rogers pin. However I thnk we'd all agree that the VAST majority of lawful, defensive shootings in the U.S. are by UNTRAINED gun owners.

Recently I had someone assert that JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win.

I don't believe that AT ALL, but I have absolutely nothing empirical to back that up.

Discuss.

[JHC]

I think that's absurd. DOJ stats show a massive advantage in avoiding injury in criminal attack if the victim resists with a weapon. This stat alone demolishes this argument. My own observation of crime reporting across the four distinct regions I've lived in indicate an overwhelming advantage to the victim-defender.

[Sadmin]

"Just as many" is very generous in my mind, but I would say that a level of training needs to be established. I wonder though, that why the shooting community has grown so large that you dont hear about "trained" individuals in a defensive shooting scenario. Is it that we are "aware" so it lessens our propensity to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or do trained / competition shooters get into defensive shootings but not mention their training as a fear of being a factor in the event? Maybe the chaos of the shooting event is so traumatic and fast, there isnt a real way to truly train for it so its a toss up due to an innate action that either you have or you dont. Anyway, whats trained here? My coworker informed me she couldnt rack the slide on her husbands G17 shes so weak...one of my close friends carries his pistol in his car and everytime he shoots his support hand grips his primary wrist. Both are f-d.

[ToddG]

Is resists with a weapon the same as defensive shooting, though? And defensive shooting certainly isn't the same as gunfight.

It seems obvious (but as Craig points out, lacking empirical evidence) that as the violence perpetrated by the attacker increases, the unskilled defender's chances decrease.

An untrained person can wave a gun around and look threatening just as well as someone who's been to GunSchoolX five times a year for the last decade. Heck, the untrained person may actually have an advantage there because he may be less restrained in accessing and pointing his gun than someone who's heard a thousand self-defense courtroom horror stories.

An untrained person can fire and miss, scaring off an attacker, just as well as a trained person. :cool:

When the situation changes to one where the attacker(s) will continue to fight after the first loud noise, though, skill -- and more importantly the ability to utilize that skill under stress -- start to matter. This plays out all the time in FOF exercises.

[SouthNarc]

You know Todd that's an important distinction and in my mind I'm lumping resist with a weapon with defensive shooting.

[ford.304]

Anyone want to start digging through stats?

First define "lost" and "won." I think we can go with "lost" as "died" because it's a much easier to number to find. We could count every armed person who got shot in that metric... but I don't think you can do that without a new funded survey. If I interrupt a robbery, and both the robber and I get shot in the arm... who lost?

How do we want to define "won"? I consider it a win if I show the guy my gun and he runs away... but is that a "defensive shooting?" Maybe take the smaller of the estimated defensive uses of guns (100,000/year)? Or do we want to go narrower and just do justified homicides?

And then what is our sample set? Do we want to only consider potentially lawful shootings? (as in, the victim was in lawful possession of a gun at the time of the shooting?) That rules out something like 70% of homicides as potential losses.

And finally, what level of untrained are we talking about? Do a one-day CCW class count? Hunting regularly?

I think it's one of those questions is going to be heavily skewed by how you define it. That said, I almost never hear news stories where someone had a gun within reach, and still got shot. Every time mother jones or salon goes to publish a list of this happening, they find the same 5-10 incidences... you'd think there would be more if it was happening as often as successful DGUs.

[ToddG]

You know Todd that's an important distinction and in my mind I'm lumping resist with a weapon with defensive shooting.

Then my guess is that any reasonable review of available literature will show that most successful DGUs involve no meaningful prior self-defense training on the part of the defender.

Look at it in terms of a contact distance fight paradigm. Plenty of untrained people change a potential attacker's mind simply by saying something or taking action below the level of physical contact (standing their ground, assuming a combative stance, or otherwise showing a willingness to resist with force). That's the H2H equivalent of "brandishing." Others might actually take a swing or two or wrestle around a bit resisting some kind of grab attempt, causing the criminal actor to cut his losses and search out easier prey. That's the H2H equivalent of a warning shot.

Those kinds of things happen every day on street corners, in parking lots, in bars, etc. They don't escalate to real knock down, drag out fights because the initial aggressor chooses to withdraw.

When the aggressor doesn't back down, and two people end up going toe to toe or rolling around on the ground, that's where the trained fighter has a real advantage. Think about the first serious "opposing will" evo at an ECQC class. Would you say the first time students who have significant MMA, BJJ, boxing, wrestling, etc. experience tend to do better than the first time students who've never had any H2H training?

[NETim]

Okay kids something substantive!

I've had some old and new internet forum discussion regarding the necessity of training. Now personally I believe that all gun owners should be fit, do BJJ, and have a Rogers pin. However I thnk we'd all agree that the VAST majority of lawful, defensive shootings in the U.S. are by UNTRAINED gun owners.

Recently I had someone assert that JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win.

I don't believe that AT ALL, but I have absolutely nothing empirical to back that up.

Discuss.

I believe the term "fail" needs to be defined. For example, the dude (or dudette) who whips out their piece in response to an armed aggressor, trades rounds, stops/drops/terminates the BG but the defender is hit with a round in the process, have they "failed?" If they later expire but their family is unharmed, have they "failed?"

[SouthNarc]

I agree that the more willing the perp is to push through, the more important training becomes.

[SouthNarc]

I'd define a "win" as stopping an attack and/or crime without being maimed or killed.

[ToddG]

I agree that the more willing the perp is to push through, the more important training becomes.

So while we still haven't achieved the goal of providing empirical data, I think that sums up the reality of the situation.

[NETim]

I'd define a "win" as stopping an attack and/or crime without being maimed or killed.

I agree. That's a definite "win."

However, even if I perform magnificently, put everything COM on Waingro JR, turn his descending aorta into a fine pink mist and yet I somehow manage to catch an incoming round in the process (despite multiple Mannix-like rolls) but my wife remains unharmed, then I'll chalk it up as a "win."

[SouthNarc]

However, even if I perform magnificently, put everything COM on Waingro JR, turn his descending aorta into a fine pink mist and yet I somehow manage to catch an incoming round in the process (despite multiple Mannix-like rolls) but my wife remains unharmed, then I'll chalk it up as a "win."


Agreed.

[Ed L]

However I thnk we'd all agree that the VAST majority of lawful, defensive shootings in the U.S. are by UNTRAINED gun owners.

Yes, because the majority of US gunowners have no formal training.

But I think the failures don't often turn up on the radar or get the publicity of the successes.

Whenever there is any profile success that comes from even displaying the gun it gets reposted from facebook page to facebook page, from blog to blog, and may windup in the Armed Citizen section of the NRA magazine American Rifleman.

You also have people posting incidents on internet forums (including some stupid ones) where they successfully scared someone off by displaying a gun.

However, people are not so quick to point out their personal failures; nor do gun bloggers and facebook people repost them.

Face it, if Zimmerman got his head pounded in and his gun taken away, none of us would have ever heard about it or would know his name.

He might have showed up afterwards at the hospital as a victim of a beating, in which case it would not have made the news. He also might have made the local news as a Hispanic male found beaten to death--in which case it would have only been a local news item without any info about him having his gun taken away by the perpetrator.

Also, look at many of the gunowners you see at shooting ranges who display poor gun handling skills, poor safety skills and poor accuracy. How well do you think that they would fare if they had to defend themselves? These are the average untrained owners.

[Chuck Haggard]

Just going off of personal observation on the street and working such calls, I can't think of a single case where a good guy ended up dead during a self defense case where a gun was used or threatened to be used in defense.

I know of some near run fights, such as the little old man who had to deploy his model 36 flat latch that he bought brand new and loaded but never fired until 50ish years later he had a home invasion to deal with. That guy got the crap beat out of him before the bad guy bled out.

Only one of the defensive shooting cases I have seen involved a good guy with any training what so ever, and that guy wouldn't have been "trained" under the paradigm of guys like Todd or Craig, although he made a one shot hit on an armed robbers face when the moment came (although I strongly suspect he was going for "center mass" at the time).

Another notable one for me was a chick stuck in the hood but trying to make a better life (seriously, not the "he was just starting to get his life together" BS) who bought a Rossi .38 from the pawn shop, they let her buy 12 rounds of RNL as that's all she could afford after buying the gun. She expended 6 rounds into the side of a metal trash can to confirm function and that she could hit a trash can, then called it good until the day she needed the gun.


Anecdotes, I know, but if a lot of people see a lot of one thing happen, and never or almost never see the other thing happen, then I think the one thing is far more likely, and not just as likely, as the other thing

[Tamara]

Also, look at many of the gunowners you see at shooting ranges who display poor gun handling skills, poor safety skills and poor accuracy. How well do you think that they would fare if they had to defend themselves?

Quite well, actually.

It has been my experience that attackers do not ask to see one's gun school diplomas when one points a gun at them.

[ToddG]

Quite well, actually.

Again though, in what context?

Can that unsafe gun range dweeb brandish like a champ? Sure.

If the person he's pointing the gun towards decides to shoot first (or shoot back), then what?

[ford.304]

Again though, in what context?

Can that unsafe gun range dweeb brandish like a champ? Sure.

If the person he's pointing the gun towards decides to shoot first (or shoot back), then what?

I think then you really have to compare the average training of the attacker. How many street thugs have attended rangemaster?

Most of the videos I've seen have shown the victim doing a bunch of point shooting and hollywood weaver, and the attackers point firing backwards while running away as fast as they can.

Real question is *why* anyone would stay and have a gunfight with a civilian. The whole point was to get your easy profit/cheap thrills, not to take territory or avoid arrest.

[littlejerry]

It seems like a debate over semantics or perhaps some paradoxical question on the training level of attackers, but this was my initial reaction to the OP:

If you assume that both parties in a DGU are "untrained", then by definition half of the people will be successful.

[ford.304]

*delete double post*

[Tikrit Tourist]

When the situation changes to one where the attacker(s) will continue to fight after the first loud noise, though, skill -- and more importantly the ability to utilize that skill under stress -- start to matter. This plays out all the time in FOF exercises.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
While this doesn't pertain to civilian self-defense scenarios, the above statement is well illustrated when US Forces encounter certain "un-trained" elements and engage them in battle.
This is usually when the superior training, tactics, and mindset of the US soldier become evident.

The same could be true when a well trained civilian or off-duty LEO encounter an armed aggressor?
Not every aggressor will run or flee at the sight of a "waved" weapon, and when lead is snapping, training will greatly increase the likelihood of survival. (but most of you know that, as your training and skill far exceed mine)

[41magfan]

Just some general observations and my own subjective conclusions;

The WILLINGNESS to resist/fight back is the most influential factor. Following close in second place is how MEANINGFUL was the level of resistance. The vast majority of criminals I’ve dealt with really don’t have a very well thought out Plan A, so when resistance is offered their Plan B is usually a fast exit.

Unlike COPS, civilian engagements don’t usually involve efforts relating to apprehension, which is a HUGE motivation for bad guys to fight. If a way out is offered, and there’s a chance that it’s a better option than standing and fighting, they’ll usually take it.

I know it happens, but I have NEVER seen an incident where hardware or “skill” was the sole determining factor in the outcome. With just a few exceptions, that last statement would apply to most law enforcement actions as well.

Having a weapon (almost any weapon) and possessing the willingness to use it trumps just about everything. I say that because on far too many occasions I’ve seen better equipped and trained individuals lose because they offered “too little - too late”.

[Tamara]

Again though, in what context?

The context of the OP. There was a contention that "JUST AS MANY" defensive shootings wind up with Aunt Milly cooling on the floor, her rusty Rossi Princess having been pried from her untrained fingers before rigor set in.

I have never seen any real-world data to back this up.

Obviously I have nothing against getting good training and building skills. Obviously I have nothing against carrying a service-size auto and a BUG. However...

The vast, vast, vast majority of people will go through life without ever needing a gun at all. I think that spending our lives immersed in this culture sometimes blinds us to that statistical reality.

If I'm already preparing myself for the statistical outlier, I may as well go all the way, know what I mean? But if I were strictly playing the odds, I'd just leave the gun at home. (Based on my personal experience thus far, I could have had the thing loaded with blanks and I'd still be here to type this, but the lesson I drew from these experiences obviously wasn't "Well, I don't need any training.")

To be fair, however, I think that a lot of people use Untrained-Yet-Victorious Aunt Milly's successful brandishing or it-missed-so-it's-a-warning-shot as an excuse not to get training.

[TR675]

The vast, vast, vast majority of people will go through life without ever needing a gun at all. I think that spending our lives immersed in this culture sometimes blinds us to that statistical reality.

I agree with this. Oh, how I agree with this. I could make a pretty good case for strolling through life fat, dumb and happy based on the crime statistics where I work and play.


To be fair, however, I think that a lot of people use Untrained-Yet-Victorious Aunt Milly's successful brandishing or it-missed-so-it's-a-warning-shot as an excuse not to get training.

Do you think it's more of an excuse not to get training or a rational calculation of the odds of needing training compared to its expense and weighed against other life and money-spending priorities? Or is it more of a bias confirmation and an irrational but possibly correct conclusion based off of a sample size of one?

[Tamara]

I agree with this. Oh, how I agree with this. I could make a pretty good case for strolling through life fat, dumb and happy based on the crime statistics where I work and play.

Based on the odds, I could free up some trunk space by ditching my spare tire, too. I think in all the years I've been driving, I've only used the spare twice. Some new cars don't even have them.

Ain't gonna, though. I even carry a B.U.... er, a can of Fix-A-Flat, too. ;)

(To continue the admittedly shaky analogy, I've actually pulled out all the tools and fiddled with them, and read the section on changing the tire in the owner's manual, because if I do have to use the spare, I don't want to be learning where the jack is and how to use it in the rain at 0300.)

[NETim]

The vast, vast, vast majority of people will go through life without ever needing a gun at all. I think that spending our lives immersed in this culture sometimes blinds us to that statistical reality.


I totally get what you're saying BUT I'll be darned if my tombstone will read "Killed By a Statistical Anomaly." :)

[Tamara]

I totally get what you're saying BUT I'll be darned if my tombstone will read "Killed By a Statistical Anomaly." :)

Do you think I do?

I'll point out that I'm not having this discussion at knitting-forum.com. ;)

[ToddG]

There is a natural mental progression in terms of self defense type skill building.

First, you have to overcome the initial hurdle: believing that self defense is worth time & money.

After that, you learn a little bit. Some people stop at that point in much the way they'll stop learning about driving after high school driver's ed. And like most drivers, most of those self defense students will never be put in a situation that demands more skill than they have. They've got no idea just how little they really know, but odds are it's enough to get by.

A small percentage will see their limited new skill set for what it is and seek to improve it. This creates an infinite loop: the more they practice the better they get, the better they get the more they realize there is room to improve, so they practice more, ad infinitum.

Where is the point of diminishing returns? It's difficult to say because each individual prioritizes differently. Thinking about it solely statistically, is being ready for 90% good enough? 95%? 99.9%? Weigh that against the time, money, and effort necessary to achieve that level of proficiency.

[NETim]

Do you think I do?

I'll point out that I'm not having this discussion at knitting-forum.com. ;)

Hell no! :)

Occupying the lowest rungs of the non-SME ladder as I do here, I cannot resist the temptation to comment when and where I think I can get away with it. :)

[TR675]

Recently I had someone assert that JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win.

I don't believe that AT ALL, but I have absolutely nothing empirical to back that up.

Discuss.

I'll make a play for a more serious type of answer, with some evidence too.

I've been collecting reports of violent crime from the local paper's crime blotter for the last 4 months or so. I'm interested in where violent crime happens in this town, at least the kind spectacular enough to make the news. In that time, I've seen four unequivocal reports of self-defense shootings and one resolved without a shooting. The good citizen prevailed in all five incidents.

In one, a homeowner fought off two suburban teenagers on an Oliver Stone-ish robbery/murder thrill-kill spree, hitting one and sustaining a minor gunshot wound himself.

In the second, the victim was apprehended by an armed robber in an apartment unit's parking lot. The bad guy forced the victim into the victim's apartment, where the victim grabbed a gun and got involved in a running gunfight with the robber, who ended up crawling into the victim's truck where he expired.

In the third, a CHL holder met the bad guy in a MetroPCS parking lot to sell him a cell-phone after getting in touch on Craigslist. The bad guy pulled a gun to rob the victim, who pulled his own gun. Both the victim and the robber were shot; the robber died from his wounds.

In a fourth, which I've posted about before, a store owner with a .38 ran off four armed robbers, shooting and wounding one with an assault rifle. No injuries to our hero.

The fifth incident was a former cop who thought that the three youts approaching him at 7 am on Easter morning looked suspicious. By the time they had their guns drawn to rob him, he already had his out and had a bead on them. They left, quickly.

The odds favor an assumption that the good guys in these five cases had little in the way of formal training, with the exception of Easter cop and possibly the cell-phone CHL holder. They all prevailed.

I know of only one case where an armed citizen was not able to protect himself. A local District Attorney and his wife were murdered in their home. He was armed, expected trouble, and was not able to protect himself. He and his wife were murdered in a home invasion by a disgruntled former county Justice of the Peace with an AR-15. He not only suspected trouble, he expected it from the man who murdered him. He supposedly had firearms training as well.

In addition, there were a metric kitten-load of other shootings and aggravated assaults during this time period, including lots and lots and lots of home invasions. There is no telling whether any of those victims had guns or the training to use them.

So, while the plural of anecdote is not data and my factual understanding of each of these incidents is sketchy, they do seem to imply that average, presumably un- or under-trained citizens with guns can successfully fight off their attackers from an intiative deficit and prevail...

[Clyde from Carolina]

"Recently I had someone assert that JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win.

I don't believe that AT ALL, but I have absolutely nothing empirical to back that up.

Discuss."

Like you, I don't buy that and like you, I don't have any numbers to refute it. Everybody reading this thread probably has more than a passing interest in this stuff. As has been stated before, I think the will to act is most important. Good training is great, too. Like Todd said, there is probably a point of diminishing returns with that. If it is your job, or your hobby, or you are simply the kind who wants to know what the heck to do with the deadly weapon you are carrying...well, thank heaven some good people get the training for whatever reason. We probably all know a lot of people who would be considered untrained by the standards of this forum who have successfully defended themselves with and without weapons. At least the LEOs do.

My granny shot the kitten out of a housebreaker with a .22 semi-auto rifle years before I was born (pre-Armed Citizen days, I think) and her only training was backyard plinking. That old lady was born kinda mean though, and I suspect she was the very willing kind as far as not being afraid to shoot a felon/fool. She certainly didn't have a Rogers pin or a Gunsite certificate in her apron pocket. Would she have prevailed if the bad guy had been more determined or better armed or more aggressive? I don't know, and the only thing I know is what I just related. Talk about anecdotal--and that's from my own family.

The previous post with the admittedly small sample seems to jibe with my own observations and experiences. I've seen nothing that would lead me to think it is even close to 50/50 with untrained victories. I think the need for the use of a firearm for defense is already slim for a decent person not frequenting racy or edgy events/places and the odds of them being confronted by a real determined Platt or Matix type are probably a whole lot less. It would be interesting to see numbers on it if somebody could dig them up or access them. Maybe somewhere in the FBI stats there is something on this, buried under the hate crime and gang violence and auto theft numbers.

[TCinVA]

My area isn't really high crime, but I've been asking around and nobody seems to be able to come up with an instance where an armed citizen either at home or out ended up dead or seriously injured in a criminal assault.

The idea that just as many people lose as win is flatly contradicted by the National Crime Victimization Survey which shows resisting criminal assault with a firearm to be the most effective and safe way to go about it.

This is one of those situations where the lack of data speaks loudly. If attempting self defense with a firearm was really a 50/50 proposition, there'd be a whole lot of dead good guys...and yet we don't see them.

[TumblinDown]

The WILLINGNESS to resist/fight back is the most influential factor.

I think this hits the nail on the head. That's not to diminish or minimize training and physical preparedness, but all of that without the psychological skills to prevail will still likely result in failure. More often than not, the one who absolutely refuses to be the victim will be the victor (in the sense of surviving). Training certainly builds on that, but it's no substitute for it. I'm not so certain training will create that mindset if it didn't already exist to some extent.

[GJM]

Outside mil/LE, my guess is the vast majority of gun owners feel no need for additional training, beyond rudimentary stuff, and it is only people into training that feel training is important. I bet most gun owners also would view those into "training" as adult versions of cub scouts trying to accumulate more badges. Statistically, most would be better off losing weight, exercising, eating better or taking a first aid class than investing effort in training.

Face it -- most of us into training just like shooting, and "training" is just our cover story for all the time we spend on it. What is the difference between a LE or military trainer and a gun nut -- the mil/LE guy gets paid.

[Clyde from Carolina]

Outside mil/LE, my guess is the vast majority of gun owners feel no need for additional training, beyond rudimentary stuff, and it is only people into training that feel training is important. I bet most gun owners also would view those into "training" as adult versions of cub scouts trying to accumulate more badges. Statistically, most would be better off losing weight, exercising, eating better or taking a first aid class than investing effort in training.

Face it -- most of us into training just like shooting, and "training" is just our cover story for all the time we spend on it. What is the difference between a LE or military trainer and a gun nut -- the mil/LE guy gets paid.

Shhh. You say that too loud or too often we might be in trouble.:D


Seriously, most LE guys I have known seem to differentiate between the "gun guys" and everybody else. The gun guys tend to be (painting with broad strokes, not absolute) the firearms instructors and everybody else is...not too into it.

[Chuck Haggard]

I know "firearms instructors" that are NOT gun guys.

Sad, but very true.

[TCinVA]

I know "firearms instructors" that are NOT gun guys.

Sad, but very true.

Boy, howdy.

[41magfan]

I know "firearms instructors" that are NOT gun guys.

Sad, but very true.

I think people outside the profession would be surprised how often that is the case.

Along those same lines, I know a number of gun nuts that can tell you how many cocking serrations there are (or ever have been) on the slide of a Colt 1911 …. that shoot several hundred rounds a week from their inventory of firearms valued at over $50k … that you would NOT want anywhere near you in a sticky situation.

I use a similar analogy with regards to “hunters” versus “shooters”. Most of the really good hunters I know aren’t fantastic marksman, but they are consistently more successful than the crack shots that lack hunting skills.

Perhaps more germane to this discussion would be the taking of dangerous game. Most PH’s in Africa will tell you there is no particular correlation between personal skill and personal performance when an animal’s closing distance is measured in feet instead of yards. The guys that predictably do the right thing have adequate control of their will and nerve – not just their trigger finger.

[NETim]

I think people outside the profession would be surprised how often that is the case.

Along those same lines, I know a number of gun nuts that can tell you how many cocking serrations there are (or ever have been) on the slide of a Colt 1911 …. that shoot several hundred rounds a week from their inventory of firearms valued at over $50k … that you would NOT want anywhere near you in a sticky situation.

I use a similar analogy with regards to “hunters” versus “shooters”. Most of the really good hunters I know aren’t fantastic marksman, but they are consistently more successful than the crack shots that lack hunting skills.

Perhaps more germane to this discussion would be the taking of dangerous game. Most PH’s in Africa will tell you there is no particular correlation between personal skill and personal performance when an animal’s closing distance is measured in feet instead of yards. The guys that predictably do the right thing have adequate control of their will and nerve – not just their trigger finger.

Back in my registered trapshootin' days, I shot my best when I had confidence in my ability to break a target, ANY target on ANY post. I got that confidence by practicing the shots I feared most. (Usually hard left goers from post 1.)

So I'd spend entire practice sessions standing on Post 1 with the trap locked down to throw hard lefts.

Training. Training with a purpose.

Confidence breeds control.

No revolutionary concepts presented here but that's how I relate to this whole training bit. And what drives me.

[GJM]

Perhaps more germane to this discussion would be the taking of dangerous game. Most PH’s in Africa will tell you there is no particular correlation between personal skill and personal performance when an animal’s closing distance is measured in feet instead of yards. The guys that predictably do the right thing have adequate control of their will and nerve – not just their trigger finger.

Disagree. Having done four African dangerous game trips, and brown bear hunted for years, when things get tough, like following a wounded cat or buff, the PH will put an unskilled client in the car. As multiple PH's have told me, they are a lot more scared of being shot by a .375 than bitten, scratched or stomped. PH buddy of mine, nearly killed by a buff, had left the client in the Toyota because of a deficiency in skill at arms.

I would argue that it is a lot easier to have control of their "will and nerve" is when they can operate their gear at a subconscious level.

[Dropkick]

Recently I had someone assert that JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win.

From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=946


Self-defense with firearms

*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.


About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92


And...

Firearm Violence, 1993-2011
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?iid=4616&ty=pbdetail



*******************************************
In 2007-11, about 1% of nonfatal violent
crime victims used a firearm in self defense
*******************************************

In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a
firearm to threaten or attack an offender (table 11). This amounted to
approximately 1% of all nonfatal violent victimizations in the 5-year
period. The percentage of nonfatal violent victimizations involving
firearm use in self defense remained stable at under 2% from 1993 to 2011
(not shown in table). In 2007-11, about 44% of victims of nonfatal
violent crime offered no resistance, 1% attacked or threatened the
offender with another type of weapon, 22% attacked or threatened without
a weapon (e.g., hit or kicked), and 26% used nonconfrontational methods
(e.g., yelling, running, hiding, or arguing).

In instances where the victim was armed with a firearm, the offender was
also armed with a gun in 32% of the victimizations, compared to 63% of
victimizations where the offender was armed with a lesser weapon, such as
a knife, or unarmed (not shown in table). A small number of property
crime victims also used a firearm in self defense (103,000 victims or
about 0.1% of all property victimizations); however, the majority of
victims (86%) were not present during the incident. No information was
available on the number of homicide victims that attempted to defend
themselves with a firearm or by other means.

Probably the best statistics you'll find with regards to firearms used in self-defense, but unfortunately they don't get into the "Trained" vs. "Untrained" part of it.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Even assuming the original premise of the thread is true, "... JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win." - have we even established what we are defining as "trained" and "untrained"?

[Drang]

Recently I had someone assert that JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win.
My usual response to allegations like that, is "Cite your sources."

[fixer]

I think another way to state this problem is: to what extent does training matter in a violent conflict?

The way I see it there are some variables that need to be accounted for prior to training.

The one with a lot of discussion here is the level of preparedness and determination of the criminal/attacker.

For example, if I get into a gun fight with someone who has the skills of "big-name-shooter-champion guy" I'm behind the curve and likely to be at a dramatic disadvantage.

So will most untrained gun owners. They are gun owners. Not enthusiasts, professionals, competitors, etc...they can find and pull the trigger.

In this situation training is a determining factor.

However, I'd venture a total WAG that most street criminals are not this skilled in armed conflict. The number of skilled, determined, career criminals are probably slightly less than the number of enthusiasts with good shoot-school credentials.

Which brings me to the point: my estimation is that the premise of the OP is false. The untrained person typically prevails by a substantive margin in resisting crime with a firearm.

[Dagga Boy]

No Stats, but I will just throw this out there. I have seen that a lot of this comes down to a big mixed bag of luck (both good and bad), experience, aggression, and skill. What "training" does is add a factor to the above mix. It may be enough to over stack the odds of the mix, and it may not. I have seen guys with exceptional levels of being good at fighting who are crappy shooters win lots of engagements (due to be high in the experienced and aggressive side). Many of your crooks have a huge advantage of experience at being an aggressive predatory criminal against much of their prey, and they like to stack numbers into the equation when they can attack with a pack. Their prey can help alleviate this with training. In the end luck, karma, or whatever you call it can ruin things for everyone. Personally, being I tend to be on the short end in the luck/karma department (my best friend says I am paying the price for being VLad the Impaler in a former life), so I try to bump up on the stack with training, a lot of experience dealing with criminals, and with that a very high level of aggression when actually engaged. So far, it has worked.........if you call sitting here permanently disabled and having a future of unending pain "worked". Compared to the results that statistically "should" have happened, I'll take it and am glad I invested in all the training.

Another factor is what you are training in. Often, it may not be applicable. The master MMA guy may not do well at 7 yards with a gun armed crook. The great shooter with amazing range performance that can't deploy a gun due to lacking in hand to hand skills at contact is just another unarmed victim. The crook who is a hyper predator with great skills at beating and maiming, but with poor gun handling skills who shoots himself during a robbery is ......a blessing. The victim who lacks in everything but puts false hope in just having a gun with no training is essentially just working on luck......which sometimes works.

[Chuck Haggard]

I think a huge part of this is that the victims of things like armed robberies take on the role of the bad guy who is dealing with the cops, just looking at the human dynamics of this stuff.

When someone says "Give me your...." it doesn't matter if that is ID or wallet, the askee still has permission to move and thus has the initiative to take it to guns right then and there, leaving the asker behind the power-curve in most cases.

As we know from the LEOKA studies, people at close range don't have to be good with a gun, they just have to want to shoot you. The crooks are the victims of this fact of life when they tell people to give up their wallets.

Last December two of my guys ended up dead in the course of three rounds of 9mm ball being fired from a pistol none of you would be willing to buy or carry, and he did this with zero formal training. He had some shooting history, but it was all of the plinking variety until he started shooting people.

[ford.304]

I think a huge part of this is that the victims of things like armed robberies take on the role of the bad guy who is dealing with the cops, just looking at the human dynamics of this stuff.

When someone says "Give me your...." it doesn't matter if that is ID or wallet, the askee still has permission to move and thus has the initiative to take it to guns right then and there, leaving the asker behind the power-curve in most cases.


That's a really interesting observation... essentially if someone is pointing a gun at you, they have already explicitly communicated one thing: they don't want to shoot you. They want you to do something. The person responding to that situation has no such limitation - their path is clear.

[GardoneVT]

Perhaps this incident will offer some background.

Two years ago I walked out of my friends apartment to see a strange character, lounging near the end of the parking lot. It suddenly stood out to me in the ten seconds it took to notice the guy that he wasn't smoking or on a cell phone, and there was no ashtray in sight.

5 seconds later he started walking deliberately toward my vehicle-which was the only one on that side of the parking lot besides my friend's car.
4 seconds ...hes coming closer. Grey hoodie, Hispanic features, right hand in hoodie pocket.
3 seconds....this is the point I go to "Condition Red". I open my jacket with an exaggerated flourish, exposing my Beretta to the guy.

2 seconds....at this point he's on the passenger side of my car, and sets a world record for the quickest right face ever accomplished by a civilian. He runs into the weeds behind the building, and the incident concludes-without a shot fired, fortunately for all involved.

I would say that the reason most people prevail against crooks isn't directly because of training, but because surprise is a powerfull ally. A scumbag who thinks someone is an easy mark assumes by definition that said target isn't going to put up a fight; which means when the gun does come out their entire plan goes down in flames, and retreat is likely to follow.

Law Enforcement, IMO, works differently because the scumbag knows he doesn't have an out. Once the cherries come on his choices are prison or death-escape isn't an option like it is for when he attacks an ordinary Joe. If you know its the end of the road for your life of villainy, that's just more motivation to go out shooting. May as well take a good guy with you, and all that.

[Chuck Haggard]

Locally we hardly ever have to deal with gunfire except in the most hardcore of cases since our rep is that you have a far better chance going to court than going to guns.
Seriously, and not my analysis, that of a few guys that I am, umm, professionally acquainted with.


Same sort of human dynamic though, bad guys who aren't crazy kamikazes aren't willing to risk losing a fight when they can take the easier route.



GardoneVT, you had what I have heard called a "shark bump", shark comes in for a bump before biting to see if the potential prey might be dangerous.


And, BTW, the "talking on a cell phone" thing is a common tactic for bad guys to use to camouflage what they are up to.

[1slow]

Many years ago a mentor of mine said "You don't have to be that good, you have to be willing." He explained that willingness to kill an attacker was a huge advantage when you were criminally assaulted.

[David Armstrong]

I can maybe throw a little light on this due to being an old-timer in this business. Not that long ago firearms training was pretty much non-existent unless you had been in the military or law enforcement, and as it related to handguns even the military didn't provide that much for most as they focused on the rifle. So if the idea that "JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win" was accurate I would think I would have seen somewhat similar numbers between winners and losers of defensive pistol encounters back in the 70s and 80s. I did not, the numbers were not even close. IME the untrained person won't always win, but they will win a lot more than they lose. I qualify that with one caveat, however...if the BG loses, does he count as an "untrained-fail" or do we only count the numbers as they relate to the GG, in which case we have the problem of one of the more common incidents, BG vs BG shootings.

[ToddG]

We need to encourage more BGs to shoot other BGs... for the data.

[fn/form]

Even assuming the original premise of the thread is true, "... JUST as many untrained people fail in defensive shootings as win." - have we even established what we are defining as "trained" and "untrained"?

How about having the OP's converser state their data for the position they have taken?


I'll make a play for a more serious type of answer, with some evidence too.

I've been collecting reports of violent crime from the local paper's crime blotter for the last 4 months or so...

It might be easier and more accurate to contact the Records department for your local LE agency. That's what they're there for. They should understand how to work their software and generate reports you request. Or at least have the most recent Uniform Crime Report available. Most large agencies have put everything but the last year or two online. You can search by address, zip code, type of crime, etc.

If the blotter for your local LE is anything like mine, it doesn't report half of what happens.

[TR675]

It might be easier and more accurate to contact the Records department for your local LE agency. That's what they're there for. They should understand how to work their software and generate reports you request. Or at least have the most recent Uniform Crime Report available. Most large agencies have put everything but the last year or two online. You can search by address, zip code, type of crime, etc.

If the blotter for your local LE is anything like mine, it doesn't report half of what happens.

I don't believe the Records dept. gives out narratives, and that's really what I'm interested in more than the pure stats. My local PD puts data online, but it doesn't help for my purposes. I'm aware the blotter doesn't report everything out there, but again, I'm more interested in anecdotes than pure data.

[fn/form]

I don't believe the Records dept. gives out narratives, and that's really what I'm interested in more than the pure stats. My local PD puts data online, but it doesn't help for my purposes. I'm aware the blotter doesn't report everything out there, but again, I'm more interested in anecdotes than pure data.

Are you looking for crime novels or stats? ;)

Narratives for incidents under investigation should not available either way, but a summary might be available. The most significant "public" details will be found in arrest/warrant affidavits, when filed. Almost all are public record once the magistrate signs off. At some point after resolution the case details do become public record. Juvenile cases and civil litigation can affect the actual availability. Example: Columbine. Over 10k pages of statements, etc. investigation pages can be located on the 'net. Yet many materials (such as the perp home videos) are still part of civil litigation and not yet available.

With most modern records management software there are classifications made when you fill out the offense report. Simple checkboxes or generic pull-down menus. For example, was the suspect armed with a firearm, lethal cutting instrument, needle, etc. Accurate reports can be generated for the offenses, time periods and locations in question--all without revealing individual case information. If you're after stats, it is more accurate than a blotter record.

The local LE records division should be available to answer your queries for what they are able to do for you. You may be able to get info relatively quickly. For some reports you may need to file a formal Open Records request. It usually involves compensation to the LE agency for the time/materials required to generate the report.

[TR675]

I understand what you're getting at and it doesn't fit with my goals.

I'm interested in a number of things, including: (1) where does most of the violent crime happen in my city (and there aren't really any surprises there), (2) what does the "typical" violent crime in my area look like/involve, and (3) how likely are any of those violent crimes (a) to happen to me and (b) if so, could the outcome be changed by me having a firearm present?

To get somewhat decent answers to these questions I need more than just statistics. Many violent crimes where someone gets hurt or held-up are high-enough profile around here to warrant at least a blip on the local crime blog, and those posts usually give somewhere between some and a lot of background information on the victim, perp, weapon used, and circumstances. I don't want to be bothered with FOI requests; I'm a busy guy with zero desire to follow up on those things - hence my interest in easily obtainable information. If it isn't 100% complete, well, that doesn't bother me hugely because missing a couple of incidents isn't going to affect my conclusions one way or the other...

[SecondsCount]

A recent incident where the homeowners gun was taken away (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=26420616&nid=148&title=burglar-steals-homeowners-gun-after-struggle-police-say&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-1)


A homeowner confronted a burglar Tuesday and fired a shot at him, but the burglar took away his weapon and ran off, police say.

[Tom Givens]

I’m late to the party on this, as I have been out of the country the past two weeks. Here are some observations, in no particular order.

Rangemaster students’ success rate (at least on events I know about) is 61/0/2 for 63 incidents. That’s 61 clear victories, zero losses and 2 forfeits. The two forfeits were people who died as a result of not being armed on The Big Day. Both were killed in separate street robberies.

Of the 61 students who won, only 3 were injured, and all recovered from those injuries. Based on my interviews with the winners, I believe the two MOST important factors are:

1. Having your damn gun on you when the event occurs, and
2. Being willing to use it to save your life.

Everything else-- gun model, caliber, ammo choice and Yes, even amount of training, seems to be a distant third after these primary two. Three of the shooters in our group were trained to our instructor level, four or five more to what I would call competency, and the rest had only had an eight hour carry permit course.
One of the things we stress at ALL training levels is the need to actually carry the gun daily, as one simply cannot make an appointment for an emergency. An emergency, in this context, is a sudden, unforeseen crisis in which one’s life is in immediate mortal danger. The key words are “sudden, unforeseen”, so making carrying a handgun a daily routine assures that it will be there when needed. I believe that because we stress this heavily, our students tend to be armed, and thus win when attacked.

I believe a big factor is the Bad Guy’s training, education and life experience. Most BG’s go through their entire careers without ever running into an armed citizen on the street. Only about 4% of the US population has some kind of carry permit, and I’d bet less than 1% of them actually carry on a routine, daily basis. So, when a BG confronts a citizen who is actually armed and produces his weapon, the resulting mental lag time for the BG allows even an untrained or minimally trained defender a golden opportunity. The one who starts the fight has an enormous advantage. In this context, the BG started the incident, but the student starts the fight. This comes as a total shock to the typical Bad Guy.

This is not to say that more advanced training is not desirable. Several of my students have been in rather difficult extreme cases and still won. Fortunately, they had training beyond a permit course.

[SouthNarc]

Been waiting for you to chime in! Forgot you were OCONUS.

[TCinVA]

Excellent input, Tom. Thank you.