TexasCHLforum.com

There was a NY Times article published on 9 Dec 07 entitled "A Hail of Bullets, A Heap of Uncertainty," by Al Baker, which dealt with the issue of "Shoot to Stop" vs shooting to kill or wound, etc. That issue was dealt with in another thread on this forum.

(The article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weeki ... ref=slogin -- you may have to register and log in to see it)

However, one of the supporting arguments (not one that I would pick) for NYPD's shoot-to-stop policy is that they feel lucky if they hit their opponent at all, never mind killing or wounding him. The article cites a hit rate of 28.3% (103 hits out of 364 rounds fired) in 2006. In 2005 it was only 17.4% (82 hits out of 472 rounds fired). Interestingly, the LAPD did better in 2006, with 40% hit rate.

I believe the NYPD data is from what I have seen referred to as "SOP 9," an effort by the NYPD to track their shootings and use the data to improve things. I have read copies of previous SOPD reports, and the hit rates are typically poor - I don't recall reading of one over 30%. There's a whole bunch of interesting questions and discussions about training, lack thereof, methodology (e.g. point-shooting vs aimed fire) and all that -- but that's not the point of my thread today.

It did get me to wondering if anyone had done any serious study of citizen self-defense shootings. (Quick aside about a small pet peeve of mine: [rant] LEOs seem to refer to non-LEOs as "civilians." I am not an LEO and I am not a civilian. I have not been a civilian since I signed up 25 odd years ago, and I am still carried on the rolls of the Air Force, albeit in the Retired Reserve. Cops are civilians, unless they are in the military police of one of the services. Ergo, I refer to non-LEOs as "citizens". Yes cops are citizens too, but if irks you to that my usage implies you are not a citizen, then you have an idea of what I am thinking when a cop refers to me as a "civilian." [/rant])

I emailed Dr. John Lott to ask him if there are any studies of citizen self-defense shooting accuracy. His reply essentially said (i.e. I am summarizing and paraphrasing), "No. It's too hard to figure out."

So just for grins I went to Clayton Cramer's Civilian (grrr! ) Gun Self-Defense Blog http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefense ... ogger.html, where he and a couple other guys collect online news accounts of self-defense using a gun. I am going through each story and totting up some data about these events, to see what I can see.

It's pretty clear I will never get any kind of count of rounds fired and all that just from these reports. Almost all of them are written immediately after the shooting event, when some, maybe most of the facts are unknown. Round counts are usually "multiple" or "single shot". or doesn't say anything at all about the round count. There are far fewer followup stories that contain more detail.

However, after trudging through about 23 of them so far (I just started yesterday), a couple trends are appearing (remember, this is a very small sample size so far):

- Most SD shootings happen at home. Convenience Stores are popular locations too.
- Burglars and other assailants fair very poorly -- if armed, they seldom get off a shot, and usually end up dead or wounded, and wounded or not, survivors get caught in time for the news story.
- Homeowners/Defenders/Convenience Store Clerks usually fair well -- seldom injured, usually hit their assailant(s)
- There are apparently quite a few misses, but NO reports so far of innocent bystander getting hit (I am pretty sure this would get reported if it happened). Few reports of what misses actually hit.

Interesting News Reporting Factoids
- Few of the stories even specify that the homeowner/clerk/defender actually used a gun, never mind whether it was a handgun, rifle, bazooka, etc - alot of stories simply say "He shot the burglar" or "The resident fired multiple shots."
- Assailants weapons are usually described: gun, handgun, knife, none.

More details and trends as I wade through these, at least until I get bored with it.

elb
USAF (Ret)

ci·vil·ian /sɪˈvɪlyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-vil-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

2. Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.

3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
–adjective 4. of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.

Thanks for looking into this.

Alright....this is like the cliff hanger at the end of the season. I really look forward to hearing more from you on this subject.

I am absolutely amazed that the NRA or another organization supporting our second ammendment rights has not compiled a database on as much of this information as possible. Even some ANTI out there trying to make a point (of course it appears so far from your small sampling it would not help their cause). The information you are seeking must be kept somewhere, the question is who has it and would they be willing to part with the raw data.

Is there anyway you could start a post with some specific statistics and update them as your research and time allow?

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20 ... /Index.asp

If Dr. John Lott says, "It's too hard to figure out," it's too hard to figure out. No agency is required to report such data. It would probably take an act of Congress to add it to the Uniform Crime Report.

From years of reading these stories, I can only draw the following conclusions:

• Armed citizens who shoot back usually survive.
• The round count is rarely more than three.
• Caliber doesn't matter.

Let the flames begin.

- JIm

Seamus - your observations are likely on target. The information to me seems invaluable as it pertains to training, serving as a deterent (publishing facts that might scare off some of the "not so stupid" criminals) and lastly (and most important) it sounds like the numbers could sway support for our second ammendment rights amongst those on the fence or undecided. In this battle for our rights the value of "numbers" at the polls is critical.

neal6325 wrote:... serving as a deterent (publishing facts that might scare off some of the "not so stupid" criminals)

That is a factor. The smarter criminals engage in crimes that are unlikely to get them killed, such as identity theft and forgery. Anyone who commits armed robbery of liquor stores or (in particular) pawn shops is probably illiterate and deserves a Darwin Award, and often earns one.

- JIm

That's not good. It would be better that all the smart ones are robbing banks and getting canned or boxed, and all the dumb ones are doing mail fraud and ID theft.

Then the world would be truly better.

seamusTX wrote:

neal6325 wrote:... serving as a deterent (publishing facts that might scare off some of the "not so stupid" criminals)

That is a factor. The smarter criminals engage in crimes that are unlikely to get them killed, such as identity theft and forgery. Anyone who commits armed robbery of liquor stores or (in particular) pawn shops is probably illiterate and deserves a Darwin Award, and often earns one.

- JIm

[quote="ELB"]There was a NY Times article published on 9 Dec 07 entitled "A Hail of Bullets, A Heap of Uncertainty," by Al Baker, which dealt with the issue of "Shoot to Stop" vs shooting to kill or wound, etc. That issue was dealt with in another thread on this forum.

(they feel lucky if they hit their opponent at all, never mind killing or wounding him. The article cites a hit rate of 28.3% (103 hits out of 364 rounds fired) in 2006. In 2005 it was only 17.4% (82 hits out of 472 rounds fired). Interestingly, the LAPD did better in 2006, with 40% hit rate.

17.4%???????? That means that they miss 82.4% of their shots.................................

Think about that for a minute. 82 out of every 100 shots fired by an NYPD officer in 2005 MISSED.

Wonder what the numbers for HPD in Houston of Harris County Sherifs Dept. look like?


Saulnier

"Shoot to Stop" vs shooting to kill or wound, etc.

There should be no difference. You avoid pulling the trigger until there is no other choice, then you pull the trigger with the intention of incapacitating the BG. If he lives, great, throw him on the stand and then send him to jail. If he dies, the situation dictated that guns were the only remaining option to protect the officers and bystanders. The only reason any of that wouldn't be true is if police shot an unarmed man. NYPD = "shoot to miss" and hope the bad guy gives up, thinking they're actually trying to hit him. If they bad guy knows he's only being shot AT, not being SHOT, he'll just keep running until the cops are out of bullets.

Liko81 wrote:There should be no difference. You avoid pulling the trigger until there is no other choice, then you pull the trigger with the intention of incapacitating the BG. If he lives, great, throw him on the stand and then send him to jail. If he dies, the situation dictated that guns were the only remaining option to protect the officers and bystanders.

Similar to a quote in "Collateral":

Max: You killed him.
Vincent: No. I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him.

I don't know if I'm in the minority, but I do my best to stay out of convenience stores. Since the more violent criminals seem to do a lot of shooting in convenience stores. I most especially avoid those stores that have their windows heavily plastered with advertising thus unintentionally providing concealment for what's going on inside.

Whenever I buy gas I use a credit card in order to avoid going inside.

It just seems a bit safer to stay outside.

Abraham - I concur with you on this mindset to minimize risk. As a side benefit I save a lot of money by avoiding these places with the prices they charge.

As far as comparing LEO shootings and those of a typical NON-LEO shooting it is nearly impossible to do so unless you compare like situations. If you just look at general statistics regarding LEO vs NON-LEO shootings it is not going to give you an accurate picture of what is going on.

To illsustrate, most NON-LEO shootings occur in a situation similar to a convenience store or home invasion (MOST, not all). In the home invasion scenerio the home owner with the gun has a very substantial advantage in that they know the lay out of the home. In the "convenient store" scenerio the BG would have many more things to be concerned about than the victim. For instance, the BG has to worry about getting what they came for, who is on the premesis when they walk in, who might walk in during the assult and how they are going to get out for starters. As the victim you have a very short list of things to focus on: Do I need to use deadly force? Can I do so safely? What is beyond my target?....all revolve around one thing, the BG. Additionally, you have the element of suprise once your are past the shock of "is this happening to me" you are the only one who knows you are carrying and everyone knows the BG is carrying. My guess is that he will be much more suprised to see you with a weapon than you were to see him with one. Lastly, most NON-LEO shootings that occur result in the BG not getting a shot off because they either flee or were incapaciated or killed before they could get a shot off.

In all those situations they are somewhat controlled (in as much as they can be) or confined giving the person in the position to defend themselves an advantage. Additionally, your goal is only to survive and if the BG gets away that is for an LEO hunt them down.

In an LEO shooting the roles are reversed and the scenerio will likely not be confined to a small area. The LEO is not in a defensive posture, they have to consider several things that the NON-LEO will not have to. The are usually outside and the BG knows they have a weapon thus will tend to go for cover unlike the above mentioned scenerios where you have the element of suprise because your weapon was concealed and likely find a BG in the open making a shot much easier. Additionally, the BG is likely goint to be more intimately familiar with the area in a situation in which an LEO is invovled giving the BG the advantage. Lastly, the LEO's goal is not only to survive but to protect as many others as possible. They are likely to be trying to apprehend and not kill the BG and they are firing in a situation that is more likley the will draw fire and be returning fire which would be infinately more difficult and thus resulting in a much lower hit ratio.

While it is easy to arm chair QB, I can see that the scenerios would be much different and comparing them would not suggest anything but that the circumstances were different. Unless we begin to open carry and make ourselves a target or post signs on our door stating that we had a gun, giving the BG a heads up, we will likely not find ourselves in a comparable situation as it pertains to hit miss ratio's.

I've not made alot of headway in examining online newspaper accounts -- I am a volunteer firefighter, and there have been an amazing number of brushfires lately in south Texas! When I haven't been tamping out fires, I've been "recovering" (i.e. long naps -- I'm not so young anymore!)

Anyway, so far most accounts are still happening either at home or at a convenience store. Citizens generally emerge unscathed and victorious. Bad guys generally do not. One aspect I've been interested in -- "collateral damage" -- has not been mentioned in any account, and I am pretty sure that if anyone was accidently wounded by a stray shot, it would get reported. Curiously, details of the bad guys' weapons are more often reported than the citizens' weaponry.

I will keep plugging away at this for awhile, to see if these trends hold, and if anything else pops up.

Now I am going to turn to present neal6325's with a counter-argument.

I don't see at all that citizen defenders have an advantage over LEOs in "most" shooting situations, particularly the convenience store ones. Pretty much all the stories I have read so far (not just the 20+ I have documented), the citizen usually gets very little warning. The citizen's one advantage, yes, is that his handgun (usually) is concealed, but beyond that he starts out behind the power curve, has to overcome his surprise and fright, already has a weapon pointed at him, and has to retrieve his own from a concealed spot, or under the counter, or in the bedroom...and then shoot, we hope accurately. I suppose it is possible that every citizen that happens to end up in this situation is always in "condition Yellow," but I tend to doubt that. I think it is especially unlikely that most citizens are in Yellow while they are sitting at home or sleeping when the clown kicks the door in. (Hint -- do keep the door locked, however flimsy it is. Noise is good.) The burglar/invader is, presumably, wide awake going in and prepared to do some damage. I am going to keep an eye on the locations of individuals if reported in the stories. Seems to me that most accounts take place at the doorway or the bedroom.

As for the police -- I would like to know the stats on how many police shootings occur in an ambush "out of the blue" and how many occur after an officer has been called to investigate something (i.e. when he especially should have his radar up). Officers operate in a culture (I hope) that constantly reminds them to be looking for threats, to know that every encounter could go wrong quickly (thus the motto I have heard police instructors use: "Be civil to everyone, friendly to no one"). So presumably the LEO should already be in the right mindset, and may very likely have warning going in (because he is responding to a call) that he may have to act lethally. Are there cops that lose this mindset, or never attain it? I'm sure they do, hard to say "on" for anything day after day, but would hope most cops are better at it than most citizens.

Granted most officers are going to go farther than most citizens in pursuing a bad guy, and be more likely to get into a shooting match-- I would hope that at that point the officer is also at the highest state of alert and readiness to bring his training and ability to bear.

Once the LEO or the citizen has reached the point of "I am going to shoot," regardless of how ready or unaware he had been previously, I do not see the dynamics being much different between the two situations. The lawful use of lethal force is pretty much the same for both, tactical and moral considerations are pretty much the same (altho the LEO will almost always have a high capacity, semi-auto service pistol, and quite possibly body armor). I expect the better trained, more practiced individuals will hit more often, and prevail more often, than those who are not, regardless of LEO/citizen status.

Perhaps srothstein or another can comment on this. Or not! I'm sure this discussion could go on for days...

Now back to the articles.


elb