Untrained versus trained

[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...