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.

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.