FBI Rule of 3...BS or Real World Data Worth Acknowledging?

[UNM1136]

I honestly think this is one of those things that have been preached for the last 30-40 years, and have become cannon. Whether immediately applicable or not, there are lessons to be learned from such...

For example: do you think/train with the concept of ECQC in mind? How much of a sight picture (let alone sight alignment) do you need for a given situation? This is a wrapped Christmas present of things to consider and train for. Even if the statistics are not there....

pat

[octagon]

So summarizing from the best sources of citizen defensive gun use for random criminal assaults it looks like

Distance: Arms length to car length

Lighting: Dark but light enough to see each other and identify threat

Shots fired: Zero to 5 most common with more mostly being misses,unnecessary

Timing wasn't discussed but considering the distance and results as well as a lot of coverage on video the 3 seconds seems pretty reasonable.

There will always be outliers and it is a good idea to be prepared for them but it's best practice to focus on most likely rather than possible.

[Navin Johnson]

I've posted longer versions, but here's my Reader's Digest version:

1) Overall stats are useless because they encompass such a wide variety of situations as to be meaningless.

2) Defense against violent crime can largely be broken down in to three categories: Occupational, Random, Targeted. If you aren't a cop, armored car guard, etc., the first metric is useless to you. If you don't have a crazy ex, aren't dealing drugs, don't owe a seedy biker gang dope money, etc. then the third category is useless to you. What you are concerned with is Random.

3) Random crime very much falls in to that trope of less than 3s, but there are outliers. I kept my own stats solely on cases I could identify as non-criminal actors defending themselves against random crimes. No domestic homicides, no drug dealers defending their turf, no police actions, etc. If I couldn't verify it was a real 'good guy vs bad guy' situation, it was chucked. I ended up with about one hundred cases to pull data from.


Results:
Distances tended to be within double arms length when outside the house.

Shots to resolution was often zero or one. Two or three was reasonably common. More than that was a fairly extreme outlier.

Total shots (what UCR would have) was sometimes higher. This confused some people, but let's say there's a video of the shooting. The bad guy starts to run as the draw stroke is being completed and the good guy fires two misses at the bad guy full sprint across the parking lot. Shots to resolution: Zero. Bad guy was already in flight. Total shots: Two. The two "extra" shots had no effect on the outcome of the fight. If you mag dump but miss every time and the guy is in full flight by shot 3, 3 shots to resolution but much more fired.

People who lost ran out of time before ammo. They got put out of the fight before they could empty their gun, the bad guy was down or in full flight before they emptied their gun, etc.

More shots *generally* equated to more misses. As people move, seek cover, spread out, etc. hit rates go down.

So, from my stats, if random crime is your main concern than 3/3/3 is a pretty solid idea, even if not an exact concrete number.

Any info on physical contact during the event?

Especially as it might relate to retention shooting or malfunctions do to fighting or holding off attacker?

[BehindBlueI's]

Any info on physical contact during the event?

Especially as it might relate to retention shooting or malfunctions do to fighting or holding off attacker?

Yes. Entangled fighting occurred in a relatively small percentage of incidents, but those incidents were lost by the defender much more often than non-entangled incidents.

[CDW4ME]

____ rounds at ____ yards on average, that type of data doesn't influence my carry.
What would I rather have in hand to defend myself, a Kahr PM9 or a Glock 19? Glock 19 wherever 100% of the time - that is data.

[feudist]

Yes. Entangled fighting occurred in a relatively small percentage of incidents, but those incidents were lost by the defender much more often than non-entangled incidents.

To what do you attribute that?

[blues]

To what do you attribute that?

As a general thought, I'd attribute it to the aggressor getting to make the first move, knowing he is going to do so, and having anger, or whatever motivated him, to fuel his attack.

Whoever has to respond to the initial action taken by an aggressor is pretty much always starting from a weaker position regardless of how things end up. Reaction is at minimum a tick behind...

Then there are intangibles...training, mindset, situational awareness etc.

Obviously, distance makes a lot of alternatives much more possible.

[wvincent]

Yes. Entangled fighting occurred in a relatively small percentage of incidents, but those incidents were lost by the defender much more often than non-entangled incidents.

To what do you attribute that?

Anxiously awaiting the answer to this myself.

As I sit here speculating (which I shouldn't), lack of skill, or lack of resolve?

[BehindBlueI's]

To what do you attribute that?

Getting disarmed. Getting overwhelmed without getting the gun until the fight effectively. Generally untrained and unpracticed public.

[JRV]

Tom’s article is fantastic because his summarized description of “random violence” tells you how to avoid or preempt it as much as it tells you what to expect from it.

If you have to be out after dark, head up, eyes and ears open, and use a bright handheld light as a stand-off device outside of a car’s length to maintain space.

The description of most common scenarios (armed robbery at gas pump, intrusion into vehicle) hammers home the supremacy of belt-line, 12-3 o’clock carry.