Armed Citizen analysis

H

Hiker 1

New member
This blogger put together some fascinating stats after a 5-year analysis for the period 1997 – 2001 and a total 482 defensive-use incidents, all by civilians.

There are several pieces of interesting data, but the ones I found to be the most interesting were:

1. Reloading was required in only 3 incidents and one of those involved dispatching an escaped lion

2. "Incidents rarely occurred in reaction time (i.e., ¼ second increments). Most commonly, criminals acted in a shark-like fashion, slowly circling and alerting their intended victims. The defender(s) then had time to access even weapons that were stored in other rooms and bring them to bear."

3. "Even mouseguns displayed a significant degree of immediate lethality (30% immediate one shot kills) when employed at close range."

More info here: http://thinkinggunfighter.blogspot.com/2012/03/self-defense-findings.html
 
Having actually skimmed through the article now, I would advice taking the information with a few grains of salt. The data is extracted from the Armed Citizen part of the NRA magazine. There is no way of telling how representative that is of such occurences in general because an editor selects what is actually printed.
 
I would think his data was pretty typical. I know that personally, I would not unload on anyone that was not an immeadiate threat, and that would mean very close. My early warning system (Dachshund) would allert me to anyone in the yard, friend or foe.

I have seen several videos of criminals "casing" a convience store...it is pretty obvious they are up to no good. Other businesses may be different, but I don't think so.

I have had one street encounter...when the guy that wanted to harm me saw my openly carried, holstered, sidearm, he turned and ran. My carry never left the holster. That is the way I want it to happen.
 
I would think his data was pretty typical.
Click to expand...
We can't say that with any degree of certainty. As Woody pointed out, the data is somewhat cherry-picked.

Nobody writes AR to tell them, "I shot myself in the leg trying to get the gun out of my pocket, so they pushed me down and took my wallet."
 
I haven't been on this site all that long, but I appear to be in the minority in not carrying extra magazines, not carrying extra weapons, not worrying about caliber of ammunition etc. because I don't think it matters much. And this survey of articles seems to lend some support to my opinions.

However, these articles all represent successful cases of defense. It leaves out the failures - and there must be some.

Perhaps there are another 500 some odd cases where the defender ran out of ammunition or his weapon jammed. I doubt it, but I'm just pointing out the weakness of using this particular source of data.

It is nonetheless interesting.
 
Already posted and discussed here in 2011.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328876&highlight=claude+werner

Something very important to note is that this is a highly biased study of only positive outcome shootings. So yeah mousegun had 30% immediate lethality in fights won by civilians, but it doesn't tell you how low the percentage was for when the civilian didn't win. In other words, a big chunk of the data are missing. The 30% is pretty meaningless because it is 30% of a subset of a whole and we don't know what percentage is of the whole the subset comprises. So what percentage of the time did mouseguns not kill immediately? More importantly, what percentage did they not stop the attacker who then did bad things to the civilian?

It is an interesting study, but statistically, it is in invalid study because of the inherent bias of the data used. The Armed Citizen does include too many articles on armed citizens who fought with criminals using guns and were slaughtered...not unless they were noted to have saved other lives. General break-ins and such where Uncle Bob got his gun to check a bump in the night and shot it out with a crazed attacker and Uncle Bob died isn't really part of The Armed Citizen database. The database is promotional for gun rights, not a scientific or exhaustive database.
 
Having read the Armed Citizen column for several decades (40 years worth or so), I can tell you that yes, it is focused on successful use of firearms.

And their articles come from local papers all over the country. AND they have never pretended otherwise.

The database is promotional for gun rights, not a scientific or exhaustive database.
Click to expand...

And who ever claimed it was? Promotional for gun rights? I suppose if you show examples of people using guns to deter crime, defend themselves and others, you are guilty of promoting gun rights. So be it.

Don't fault the "database" because you expect it to be something it isn't and never was. Its a collection of newspaper clippings about armed citizens defending themselves, and has been an ongoing feature of the American Rifleman for much longer than a lot of us have been alive.

Now, making a study using only the Armed Citizen archives, and then claiming it is the whole truth about everything, that is flawed, but the base data is real, and as far as I can tell, honest. If you draw flawed conclusions from it, the error is yours, not theirs.
 
44amp is correct, plus if you read the article, the author points out that this is one study that he did based on a certain data set - AC articles.

The trends in that data are consistent with other instances that we come across in the media. Combine that with incidents involving someone we know personally (one family friend of mine was in a shootout and another shot and killed a would-be rapist), 2nd and 3rd hand stories and personal experiences and the data looks pretty solid.

The study is dated and concealed-carry has increased dramatically since then, so that trend has been left out.
 
If we decide to conclude that the data is useful, then it may cause those of us in the civilian defensive-gun ownership community to think a little differently, such as:

1. maybe extra ammo is not necessary
2. a revolver is just fine in most situations
3. perhaps IDPA matches, trips to Gunsite, other sorts of tactical training are really fun times out with the boys branded as "training" to justify the time and expense to ourselves and our significant others
4. 9mm vs .40, Glock vs SIG, etc may be irrelevant in a real-world situation

etc, etc
 
If we decide to conclude that the data is useful, then it may cause those of us in the civilian defensive-gun ownership community to think a little differently, such as:

1. maybe extra ammo is not necessary
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is a great example of not understanding the biases inherent in the data. Sure, maybe extra ammo isn't necessary if you win the fight before you run out of ammo. What about those who did not?

To suggest extra ammo maybe isn't necessary based on this data just doesn't make sense given that you don't have the data for those who ran out of ammo and/or those who lost their fights.
 
Hiker 1 said:
If we decide to conclude that the data is useful, then it may cause those of us in the civilian defensive-gun ownership community to think a little differently, such as:

1. maybe extra ammo is not necessary....
Click to expand...
But the data simply isn't useful for that purpose.

The data is useful for demonstrating that private citizens do in fact successfully use guns to justifiably defend themselves and others. But because the analysis is not statistically valid, it's of no use for making decisions about tactics, equipment choices or anything remotely similar. A biased sample simply has no utility for such purposes.
 
Sure it is. I would challenge anyone to find meaningful statistics, not a couple of examples, where armed citizens needed to reload.

I'm going to suggest that 1/2 of 1% is pretty accurate.
 
Hiker 1 said:
Sure it is...
Click to expand...
No, I'm sorry but as a matter of fact and mathematics, it is not. The utility of the data is extremely limited as I have described.

Hiker 1 said:
...I would challenge anyone to find meaningful statistics, not a couple of examples, where armed citizens needed to reload....
Click to expand...
That is another matter entirely and has nothing to do with the significant flaws in the Armed Citizen's analysis.

I might not have any statistically valid data demonstrating the frequency with which an armed citizen in a defensive encounter might need to reload. But that doesn't make the so called analysis of the statistically invalid Armed Citizen's data any better. It only means that we don't know.

The bottom line is that, if you find yourself needing to defend yourself, you can't know ahead of time what you will need to be able to do to solve your problem. Maybe you'll be able to prevail with the skills and tools you have, or maybe not. But the better prepared you are, the luckier you'll be.

Hiker 1 said:
...I'm going to suggest that 1/2 of 1% is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...
You're free to suggest anything you like. But in this case, you have absolutely no good evidence to support your suggestion.

Statistically invalid data is statistically invalid data. It doesn't magically become valid just because that's all you happen to have.
 
If me or any of the people I work for attempted to publish anything based off of data like this we would all be fired.
 
Statistically invalid data is statistically invalid data. It doesn't magically become valid just because that's all you happen to have.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Also, invalid data does not magically become valid just because it agrees with your preconceived ideas or "gut feeling". Lastly, "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."
 
I'm going to suggest that 1/2 of 1% is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

It certainly can be, if it is a random sample that is representative of the whole set of self defense situations. But it is a sample of successful self defense stories, only the ones involving firearms, and only the ones that made the news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top