OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by garyl43:
But I would not attribute your inability to find detailed accounts of what has happened in lawful civilian defensive use of force encounters solely to the fact that such encounters happen rarely. The real point is that no one regularly compiles the data.
Chances of being a victim of a violent crime in any one year are about one in 2,000. Lifetime probabilities are much, much higher.
That doesn't tell us much about your risks. I would guess that golfers face a much higher risk of being stuck by lightning that do most others, and that pizza delivery persons face a much higher risk of vlolent attack than do many people. And some of us avoid bars; we should be safer.
If you are attacked, and if you do need to shoot--well, I find JohnKSa's analyses rather persuasive. And in risk management, that is the way to look at mitigation decisions from the standpoint of likelihood.
But likelihood isn't everything. You also need to take into account the severity of the potential consequences.
But a few examples would not really tell us anything, would it? There are examples of people needing more than one large capacity magazine, but that would not convince me to prepare for such an event.
When there is a paucity of actual data, one needs to use other analytical methods--simulation, game theory, projections based on relevant analogies, and so on.
The Tom Givens DVD shows a lecture with PowerPoint charts. It is interesting to those of us who would like to learn something about how a few incidents started and played out.
If you want videos, look for some that involve shooting situations--Tueller drills, motorized targets, shoot/no-shoot exercises, and so on. Watch how many shots the participates fire, and how quickly.
The difference between what one sees in those videos and range practice, and between those and screen fiction (the bad guy never charges, and one shot always blows 'em down) may be new to many people.
Fair enough. The DVD sells for $24.95. You may have many better uses for that money.
But I would not attribute your inability to find detailed accounts of what has happened in lawful civilian defensive use of force encounters solely to the fact that such encounters happen rarely. The real point is that no one regularly compiles the data.
Hold on a minute: One's chances of getting hit by lightning in any one year are reportedly about one in 300,000, but the chances of being struck in one's lifetime are said to be one in 3000. I did once meet two brothers who had bee struck by lighting. They survived.
Chances of being a victim of a violent crime in any one year are about one in 2,000. Lifetime probabilities are much, much higher.
That doesn't tell us much about your risks. I would guess that golfers face a much higher risk of being stuck by lightning that do most others, and that pizza delivery persons face a much higher risk of vlolent attack than do many people. And some of us avoid bars; we should be safer.
If you are attacked, and if you do need to shoot--well, I find JohnKSa's analyses rather persuasive. And in risk management, that is the way to look at mitigation decisions from the standpoint of likelihood.
But likelihood isn't everything. You also need to take into account the severity of the potential consequences.
That's fair enough.
But a few examples would not really tell us anything, would it? There are examples of people needing more than one large capacity magazine, but that would not convince me to prepare for such an event.
When there is a paucity of actual data, one needs to use other analytical methods--simulation, game theory, projections based on relevant analogies, and so on.
The Tom Givens DVD shows a lecture with PowerPoint charts. It is interesting to those of us who would like to learn something about how a few incidents started and played out.
If you want videos, look for some that involve shooting situations--Tueller drills, motorized targets, shoot/no-shoot exercises, and so on. Watch how many shots the participates fire, and how quickly.
The difference between what one sees in those videos and range practice, and between those and screen fiction (the bad guy never charges, and one shot always blows 'em down) may be new to many people.
