Self defense encounters facts - how do things typically go down?

[joseywales]

I am looking for statistics for actual shooting encounters. Don't tell me about that actual encounters are 10 feet, etc. I'm interested in how it goes down.

For good reasons, we practice drawing from a holster and double tapping, etc. But how many times is that actually how a shooting goes down? Is that more likely, or is it more likely that you'll have your gun in hand and time passes, before shots are fired? Think, someone enters the home, you have gun in hand, bad guy enters the room, or you encounter bad guy on the way to securing the rest of your family.

I know it pays to prepare for each scenario, but I'm just curious about how these encounters have gone down historically.

[dgg9]

If you go by BoJ statistics, people tend to brandish more often than they pull the trigger. Same statistics plus the weight of newspaper articles indicate people completely miss or get non-telling hits in self defense shootings quite often, the majority of the time I think.

A lot of DGUs transpire across a fair amount of time. SOME categories of attacks are more sudden and reactive.

[joseywales]

Agreed. We've seen two SD shootings in the past two weeks. One was a home invasion and the homeowner struggled with two gunmen, before popping rounds at them as they fled through the house. I believe he got a hit or two, but no real facts.

Another, East Oak lane I believe. Mom comes back from the market, popped off a couple rounds down the stairwell, chasing a thug who just beat the crap out of and robbed her son. She killed the 19 year old bad guy.

These are the types of sats I'm interested in. When shots are fired, what are the circumstances?

[dgg9]

These are the types of sats I'm interested in. When shots are fired, what are the circumstances?

If you want what you described, there are no "stats" I'm aware of that are sufficient. There are thousands of DGU accounts -- news accounts usually -- available online, and in periodicals (CCM, the NRA rag). As always, you have put news accounts through a BS filter, but certain neutral factors can be gleaned: time, place, number of attackers, general scenario, general feel for time elapsed, did BG get hit or died.

I have to say, I haven't seen a huge preponderance of "defender drew his service caliber weapon and made two shots right in the attacker's descending aorta, with BG then DRT" events. Real DGUs tend to be with untrained people, and seem sloppy. But that's true of real fights too.

[father-of-five]

I, too, find that most "mainstream" news articles discussing this type of information, tend to omit much of the information you are looking for.

[rmagill]

I have tried to find statistics like you are looking for. Unfortunately, unless you know - or can speak with - people who have been in such situations there is only so much you can find out. Also, in a defensive shooting, people don't stop in the middle of the incident to remember exactly how far away they were when they fired exactly n amount of rounds.

Personally, I have found that articles in the Armed Citizen section of the various NRA magazines usually have enough content in them to get a decent idea of what actually happened. Also, if you can, try to read as many books as possible by people who have already researched these statistics and who did talk with the people who have been there. Just my .02.

[Jim8300]

Here are a couple of links that may show you part of the information you are looking for.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=94

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

[joseywales]

Thanks guys. I'm not so concerned about distance, as I am the scenario: "quick draw" vs gun already in hand, etc.

I actually did a thesis on c-store crime, more specifically the ability of Closed Circuit TV in deterring c-store crime. I was making a case for our company's Interactive Audio/Video security system, which we manned 24/7. We were NOT a security firm, rather we owned the C-stores.

Anyway, it was interesting that most convicts interviewed would rather challenge an armed guard than a color secuirty monitor. B&W monitors, they would take their chances. Their "logic" was that they could beat a B&W video in court, but not color. And I guess they always thought they could beat the armed guard.

[dgg9]

Check this out:

http://gunssavelives.net/

...I just noticed it myself.

[PeteG]

I am looking for statistics for actual shooting encounters. Don't tell me about that actual encounters are 10 feet, etc. I'm interested in how it goes down.

For good reasons, we practice drawing from a holster and double tapping, etc. But how many times is that actually how a shooting goes down? Is that more likely, or is it more likely that you'll have your gun in hand and time passes, before shots are fired? Think, someone enters the home, you have gun in hand, bad guy enters the room, or you encounter bad guy on the way to securing the rest of your family.

I know it pays to prepare for each scenario, but I'm just curious about how these encounters have gone down historically.

It appears to me that you are getting links and references to what is available out there. Unfortunately, what is available is not very reliable in any aspect, including Department of Justice reports on police-involved shootings.

The problem is the "self report inventory." After a shooting, when one is asked "what happened?", they not only do not know the details (how many shots, who shot when, distance, what was said by whom, etc.), they will swear to things that video shows did NOT happen.

A stark example is one who got excited or was startled and negligently discharged the gun, then swears the gun "just went off." They are not always lying; they believe it just went off.

The same thing goes on during training exercises, let alone a real emergency. Examples include: People shoot to slide lock, and are astonished their firearm stopped working; when people are asked how many rounds they fired at a surprise "bad guy" pop-up, their reports are often (but, curiously, not always) wildly inaccurate; when people are asked at the end of a simulator questions about the targets they engaged (how many, gender, armament) they are inaccurate.

These are not issues of bias; they are issues of not having enough cognitive "power" to take in and process everything accurately. The bias comes when the interviewer shows up, and the individuals involved start wondering about their legal situations.

Police in particular are under a lot of pressure to make their reports conform to the wishes, dreams and aspirations of administrators. One of my teachers was formerly with a big-city department, and describes a (rare) running fight where the gunfire “sounded like a popcorn machine,” and went on for ten minutes. In the end there were something like 17 rounds reported as having been fired.

With more and more surveillance cameras out there, we should expect to see more actual incidents caught on camera. That should help. Note, however, that as of now there is no systematic way to try and catalog video of shootings according to fixed criteria or pieces of information we want to collect.

For about 30 years the staff and many graduates of the American Pistol Institute/Gunsite Training Center made a point of reporting back about any shooting in which they were involved. (I don't know if this is still done or not.) The purpose was to try and ascertain what was actually needed and "what works" in terms of training. They got lots of information, but I don't know if it has ever been organized or disseminated outside "the family."

We are pretty much left with anecdotal information, DOJ reports which are of limited usefulness, and what we know about fights in general. This is a primary reason why there are so many theories out there regarding how to train; there is precious little reliable history, and such as there is can be easily ignored by those who are convinced their theories constitute a sufficient contribution to the conversation to make them relevant.

I have proposed the following will be true the great majority of the time where any law-abiding citizen (not police or military) finds himself in a violent confrontation:

1. It will happen at a time and in a place where we do not expect it will happen.

2. Even a vigilant and attentive individual will almost never have more than a few seconds of advance notice they are about to be involved in a very serious fight.

3. If it involves guns or blades, it will essentially be over in a few seconds.

4. If one is not already practiced at what to do when the trouble starts, one will not do it.

What does any of that say about what might happen in your particular case? Not enough, I am afraid. But it does suggest some things about equipment and training.