1st round of stats of citizen v criminal resistance.

[BehindBlueI's]

I wonder how level of training (no training vs. some minimal level of training vs. lots of training from qualified instructors) factors into that. I realize that sample size would be an issue, but would really be interesting to see how those numbers compare against Tom Givens' results. Not so much so as to compare Tom against other instructors (and I'm sure if that were done, the results of his students would hold their own), but it could be hugely informative to get friends to train or go beyond the one CCW class if they see the differences in outcomes.

Well, I think that was addressed earlier in either this thread or another. Givens says his students are 100% when armed. His students, by definition, have trained. That's a pretty good indication, IMO.

That said, I don't think any level of training can prepare you 100%. The best trained warriors the US has to offer take casualties. There are some situations that are just unwinnable or rely on luck. An example is a guy who was visiting a friend and is shot at with an AR rifle prior to him being aware of the assailant. The attacker thought he was targeting his ex-gf's new boyfriend, but had the wrong couple (the person he was stalking had moved). The victim was armed, but was incapacitated by the first shots prior to being able to draw. I don't know what he could have done to prevent that. Had the assailant missed or grazed him, training could enter the equation. As it was, an unwinnable scenario. Also an indication of what targeted violence looks like. In the attacker's mind, it was targeted. He *meant* to kill the guy, he wanted nothing from him other than his death, and he ambushed him. I include it in the random crimes because in reality it was random. The victim did nothing wrong, strictly wrong place/wrong time.

We should strive to be as close to 100% as we can be, but we also need to understand that not every situation is winnable (no matter how well trained and equipped) and avoidance is a fantastic option when possible.

[Chef]

Given that I've combed through a bit over 300 cases right now, yes. I knew anecdotally that most of my shootings involved a targeted victim due to gang affiliation, drug trade, or family/domestic issues. I just failed to realize how large that gap was. I'd have even fewer if I culled out when a person was targeted due to their job. Gas station clerks, delivery drivers, etc. The number of people in non-high risk occupations who didn't marry, date, or be born to a pyscho, and who aren't involved in criminal activity who are confronted with random violence is pretty darned tiny.

Side note, the domestics tend to be the most interesting. Not always dating/married, but even family shootings.
Ex: elderly father is confronted by middle aged son in elderly father's home. Argument ensues over something or other. Son threatens to beat elderly father. Elderly father pulls a .44 magnum and says he won't take a beating. Son says "you don't have the balls to shoot me", armed father says "I'll show you who doesn't have the balls" and then shoots son in the jimmy, which caused the loss of a testicle and a secondary butt hole. Father did not take a beating. Prosecutor rules justified, disparity of force due to the elderly man's age and the differences in physical strength and stature.

I bet this next Thanksgiving is going to be awkward.

Not that it would ever come to it, but I already know my dad has the balls to shoot me too.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Erik]

Question is, does the guy in the above scenario have the ball to shoot his dad next time?

[Kukuforguns]

Question is, does the guy in the above scenario have the ball to shoot his dad next time?

Well, he does have a pair of a$$holes to back him up.

[TheNewbie]

I may have asked this before, but in the case of the person failing to disengage the safety, what type of pistol was this ?