How many shots is enough

Thanks for the vids Constantine. My 87 yo mother went Biden on a shady teenager that wouldn't leave her see through security door. She kept telling him NO Go away, he kept insisting just open the door. She retrieved a single shot 12 ga Ithaca from wall rack and he got the message then real clear. Ole Joe would have proud. I know I was :)
 
All the reports I have read, have averaged "3", so I add one more, for Mr. Murphy, to a total of four. Remember, Jack Ruby, as the AGGRESSOR, did it in one.

When I am without the house, a j-frame, and a speed strip or two, loaded "2" space "2", since you can load in pairs, quicker than getting that 5th one in right. Quicker to get back on target, too.

When I am within the house, a nice Model 15, and either Safari 3's or Jetloaders.
 
All the reports I have read, have averaged "3", so I add one more, for Mr. Murphy, to a total of four. Remember, Jack Ruby, as the AGGRESSOR, did it in one.
Click to expand...

Really?

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-iss...ne-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/DF_Articles/Files/Oregon/92-Oregonian_Study.htm

And this is where the rule of 3 comes from.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...eloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killed

Those are the gunfights that cops lost.

You say but wait..... That has nothing to do with CCW! Well, the same felon that shoots it out with the police is the same felon you are standing in line with. There is no data base for civilian shootings.
 
When I teach statistics - as I have for many years, with a book and major web site published - I teach in descriptive statistics that you have to consider the central tendency and distribution characteristics.

All the talk of averages alone clearly indicates a lack of understanding of such concepts.

Then tie that to a risk level cut off based on the variability measures.
 
Then tie that to a risk level cut off based on the variability measures.
Click to expand...

Would a box and whisker plot show a better range of information to base a decision on? Or maybe graph a bell curve and look at two standard deviations on each side?
 
All the reports I have read, have averaged "3", so I add one more, for Mr. Murphy, to a total of four. Remember, Jack Ruby, as the AGGRESSOR, did it in one.
Click to expand...

Jack Ruby shot Oswald - a handcuffed man not expecting to be shot, standing practically still - at point blank range.

Hardly a self-defense comparison.
 
How many shots is enough
Click to expand...

Enough for what? If the O/P is asking how much ammo I carry for my CCW the answer is 6 .357 Magnum rounds loaded, along with1 full reload on my person. I also keep two full reloads in the car.
 
Depending upon the time of year and the days activities my carry can be anything (all 9mm) from a 6+1 pocket pistol to a 15+1 "compact". No matter what, it is always complemented with a spare mag of at least similar capacity if not one or two more rounds larger.
 
If we had real data on enough defensive shootings - I doubt it would be a bell curve - so I like the box plot idea. That would give us a handle on the asymmetry. It would anchor at zero - the most likely outcome in DGUs - no shots fired as we have deterrence.

A box plot of when shots are fired would be interesting.

One has also to look at the total number of shots fired incidents. We may not have that as they may not be all reported. Then, we could see if a small percentage translates into an absolute large number if the total number is large. That's the way medical research looks at it - a small percent change over a large number of possible cases can be quite cost effective.

In some neighborhoods, defensive shots fired are not reported and wounds are treated by kitchen table medics if the wound is not life threatening. Kleck mentions this as do reports from sociologists who embedded themselves in gang/poor neighborhood life.
 
It would anchor at zero
Click to expand...
Glenn,

I was thinking more about this and if we were to box graph the data for this kind of discussion I think it would be more useful to leave the zeros out or give them some very small fraction of one.

If the discussion is about if the statistics say to carry at all then you need the zero. But I am assuming that everyone is going to carry and is going to carry a minimum of five rounds.

It might also be useful to evaluate some of the upper end numbers for shots needed versus number actually fired. It is often stated that people empty the gun without realizing it. Did they need that many rounds?

I understand this would skew the hard data but I think the idea is to arrive at more of a qualitative answer, how many rounds should I carry, than a hard data quantitative answer.

I am probably missing a number of factors that should be considered. But, what do you think?
 
Last edited:
Good ideas - we would have to have a good data set. We would also have to factor out hits vs. misses.

Getting rid of zero and stating that the analysis is for when shots are actually fired is a good idea also.

The question isn't usually asked that way but I think most assume it's for when you are really in a gun fight.

Since ever estimate is going to be probabilistic - I think that the best answer is a pragmatic and heuristic one. One gun and a reload or two.

The good neighborhood argument is bogus and the average being 3.94932 doesn't do you any good.

The deterrent argument argues that a J frame and 5 does it fine for the no shots fired.

Interesting discussion.
 
Answering the question: How many shots is enough?" I'm reminded of testimony in Court about a young police officer who found himself in a fairly stiff fight one evening with a doped up suspect and finally subdued him with the baton. At trial, it came out that the officer had struck the suspect seven times, all good hits, just like he was taught in the academy. No bad hits in lethal areas, the young cop fell back on his training and won the encounter before anyone was seriously injured.

At trial, the defense attorney tried to make an issue of the number of hits. "Why seven? Why did you have to hit him seven times?"

The officer thought about it for a minute and replied "Six strikes weren't sufficient, and eight would have been excessive."

The Court agreed with the officer and the suspect went to jail. The officer was fully vindicated in that six strikes was not sufficient given the totality of the circumstance. Seven strikes was sufficient, and eight would have been excessive.

We can extend this metaphor to handguns. If six is not enough, and seven would be sufficient, then eight would be excessive. It all goes to the totality of the circumstances and the scenario at the time.
 
RBid said:
This is probably my favorite BS sentiment, ever.
Click to expand...

I didn't want to say it like that, but I agree.

This my "at least" carry...

azu2e9yt.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top