User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 4:58:33 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
I'm involved in a "discussion" on the statistics of innocent bystander injuries in a self defense scenario. He maintains that more bystanders would be injured if armed citizens defended themselves. While I know this is not the case, I am looking for any sort of statistical analysis that bears out my argument. Can anyone point me in the right direction? How do you " know" that that would not be the case? if you have an increase in number of uses of force, there will always be an increase in errors that go along with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 5:26:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm involved in a "discussion" on the statistics of innocent bystander injuries in a self defense scenario. He maintains that more bystanders would be injured if armed citizens defended themselves. While I know this is not the case, I am looking for any sort of statistical analysis that bears out my argument. Can anyone point me in the right direction? How do you " know" that that would not be the case? if you have an increase in number of uses of force, there will always be an increase in errors that go along with that. Ask your friend how many people win fights that refuse to fight back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 6:10:55 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm involved in a "discussion" on the statistics of innocent bystander injuries in a self defense scenario. He maintains that more bystanders would be injured if armed citizens defended themselves. While I know this is not the case, I am looking for any sort of statistical analysis that bears out my argument. Can anyone point me in the right direction? How do you " know" that that would not be the case? if you have an increase in number of uses of force, there will always be an increase in errors that go along with that. Not necessarily. Numerically speaking, when there is an increase in force on the part of the defender the result is often a resultant decrease in force from the agressor. Moreover, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases every year that involve people using firearms to defend themselves and their families, with no casulaties save the criminal antagonist. These are the statistics I am looking for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 6:34:25 AM EDT
[#4]
Unless a incent bystanders gets hurt there is no report on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 7:12:17 AM EDT
[#5]
Google Dr. Gary Kleck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 8:48:13 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Not necessarily. Numerically speaking, when there is an increase in force on the part of the defender the result is often a resultant decrease in force from the agressor. Moreover, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases every year that involve people using firearms to defend themselves and their families, with no casulaties save the criminal antagonist. These are the statistics I am looking for. The more rounds that get fired in more incidents, the greater the liklihood that some of those rounds will not go where they were intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 8:49:51 AM EDT
[#7]
Most attacks happen when there are no bystanders
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 8:53:37 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not necessarily. Numerically speaking, when there is an increase in force on the part of the defender the result is often a resultant decrease in force from the agressor. Moreover, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases every year that involve people using firearms to defend themselves and their families, with no casulaties save the criminal antagonist. These are the statistics I am looking for. The more rounds that get fired in more incidents, the greater the liklihood that some of those rounds will not go where they were intended. While that may be true, the assumption that people defending themselves results in more rounds fired has no basis in fact. If you have someone that intended to fire 200 rounds, and someone else pops him twice in the head before he can reload after emptying a mag, the total round count goes way down. Thats why its called stopping the threat. Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:03:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
While that may be true, the assumption that people defending themselves results in more rounds fired has no basis in fact. If you have someone that intended to fire 200 rounds, and someone else pops him twice in the head before he can reload after emptying a mag, the total round count goes way down. Thats why its called stopping the threat. Thats not whats being discussed, though, from what I gather of the OP. No doubt if a bad guy gets shot two rounds into a particular incident where he might have otherwise have fired 200 rounds, it would result in fewer victims dying. I believe the thread is simply about innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. I know its a fine distinction, but it is a different topic |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:04:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Not necessarily. Numerically speaking, when there is an increase in force on the part of the defender the result is often a resultant decrease in force from the agressor. Moreover, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases every year that involve people using firearms to defend themselves and their families, with no casulaties save the criminal antagonist. These are the statistics I am looking for. The more rounds that get fired in more incidents, the greater the liklihood that some of those rounds will not go where they were intended. Given the vast majority of encounters between armed citizens and perpetrators result in ZERO shots fired (per John Lott); given that armed citizens do not do mag dumps when they do fire at perpetrators; given the very low number of incidents where an armed citizen has been convicted of manslaughter of bystanders - or found civilly liable - your quite-logical statement is factually unproven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:06:00 AM EDT
[#11]
tell your opponent that there are no innocent bystanders when some kook decides to take on the world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:18:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Given the vast majority of encounters between armed citizens and perpetrators result in ZERO shots fired (per John Lott); given that armed citizens do not do mag dumps when they do fire at perpetrators; given the very low number of incidents where an armed citizen has been convicted of manslaughter of bystanders - or found civilly liable - your quite-logical statement is factually unproven. Right, the vast majority of SD incident involve no rounds fired. The larger your sample group is though, obviously the number of exceptions to that rule will be larger. Therefore increasing the potential of innocent people being shot |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:21:55 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
He maintains that more bystanders would be injured if armed citizens defended themselves. That would depend on the situation and how "good" the armed citizen(s) were. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:24:25 AM EDT
[#14]
No bystanders hurt in this SD shooting but do take noticed at how fucking retarded they act.
 If the bad guys were returning fire the bystanders would have only themselves to blame for getting hit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:30:09 AM EDT
[#15]
Try not to get noticed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:30:09 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
I'm involved in a "discussion" on the statistics of innocent bystander injuries in a self defense scenario. He maintains that more bystanders would be injured if armed citizens defended themselves. While I know this is not the case, I am looking for any sort of statistical analysis that bears out my argument. Can anyone point me in the right direction? You probably won't find any. More guns might mean more bystanders being hit and it might not. Every situation is different. The possibilities are endless. I'm not worried about bystanders in a shootout, I'm concerned more about the shooter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:33:22 AM EDT
[#17]
Armed society = Fewer incedents requireing the use of force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:40:02 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not necessarily. Numerically speaking, when there is an increase in force on the part of the defender the result is often a resultant decrease in force from the agressor. Moreover, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases every year that involve people using firearms to defend themselves and their families, with no casulaties save the criminal antagonist. These are the statistics I am looking for. The more rounds that get fired in more incidents, the greater the liklihood that some of those rounds will not go where they were intended. False logic. Shooter shoots 60 rounds, uncontested. High probability of hit ratio. Shooter starts to shoot and is met with resistence. Say total number of 10-20 rounds fired, under adverse conditions. Lower likelyhood of high hit ratio for shooter AND lower number of rounds fired. It's ALWAYS better fo meet force with force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:43:13 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
False logic. Shooter shoots 60 rounds, uncontested. High probability of hit ratio. Shooter starts to shoot and is met with resistence. Say total number of 10-20 rounds fired, under adverse conditions. Lower likelyhood of high hit ratio for shooter AND lower number of rounds fired. It's ALWAYS better fo meet force with force. Once again, thats not whats being discussed |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:49:21 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
I'm involved in a "discussion" on the statistics of innocent bystander injuries in a self defense scenario. He maintains that more bystanders would be injured if armed citizens defended themselves. While I know this is not the case, I am looking for any sort of statistical analysis that bears out my argument. Can anyone point me in the right direction? He made the claim, let him go on a fool's errand trying to support it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 11:24:40 AM EDT
[#21]
The victim is an innocent bystander. The implicit philosophy behind the objection raised is that the victim is somehow morally inferior to whomever the criminal did not target and it is okay if they are injured.
Perhaps I could better phrase it as the objection implicitly treats the defending victim as a voluntary combatant instead of treating them as an innocent person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 11:41:05 AM EDT
[#22]
I think the correct answer for your friend, is that since there are millions of CCW holders out there, and thousands of defensive uses: "Go find me one incident where an innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and get back to me."
If he finds one give 100 news stories where they weren't. Easy enough if you're an NRA member. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 11:52:34 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm involved in a "discussion" on the statistics of innocent bystander injuries in a self defense scenario. He maintains that more bystanders would be injured if armed citizens defended themselves. While I know this is not the case, I am looking for any sort of statistical analysis that bears out my argument. Can anyone point me in the right direction? How do you " know" that that would not be the case? if you have an increase in number of uses of force, there will always be an increase in errors that go along with that. Not necessarily. Numerically speaking, when there is an increase in force on the part of the defender the result is often a resultant decrease in force from the agressor. Moreover, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases every year that involve people using firearms to defend themselves and their families, with no casulaties save the criminal antagonist. These are the statistics I am looking for. Read "More Guns, Less Crime". By Gary Kleck. He lays it out fairly well |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 11:57:03 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: I think the correct answer for your friend, is that since there are millions of CCW holders out there, and thousands of defensive uses: "Go find me one incident where an innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and get back to me." If he finds one give 100 news stories where they weren't. Easy enough if you're an NRA member. There was one posted here a few months ago. Robbers went into a store, locked the doors, and held the place up. One of the victims draws down, a shoot out occurs and I think it was a store clerk that got caught in the cross fire. But, when doors get locked bad things are going to happen. The clerk and everyone else in that store were probably going to die anyways if no one were carrying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 12:05:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
False logic. Shooter shoots 60 rounds, uncontested. High probability of hit ratio. Shooter starts to shoot and is met with resistence. Say total number of 10-20 rounds fired, under adverse conditions. Lower likelyhood of high hit ratio for shooter AND lower number of rounds fired. It's ALWAYS better fo meet force with force. Once again, thats not whats being discussed He maintains that more bystanders would be injured if armed citizens defended themselves––––––––This was the original hypothesis. I'm saying that if an armed citizen defends themselves it reduces the likelyhood of a bystander getting shot because it stops the aimed, targeted threat against that "bystander" sooner. You're assuming that a defender engaging the shooter increases rounds fired. That's not necessarily ( I would go so far as to say, likely) not true. Especially, if you're talking about a shooter intent and equiped to fire dozens or hundreds of rounds. Your statement would only hold true if the shooter was only targeting the defender, with a modest capacity firearm and the defender was a poor shot. (Which, statistics show that civilians have a higher hit ratio than LEOs, realizing that there are some mitigating factors in that stat). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2012 12:13:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
You're assuming that a defender engaging the shooter increases rounds fired. That's not necessarily ( I would go so far as to say, likely) not true. Especially, if you're talking about a shooter intent and equiped to fire dozens or hundreds of rounds. I took the topic to be about rounds fired by defenders only. You and others want to talk about rounds that were prevented being fired by the bad guy. I understand where you guys are coming from and I agree with you, but as I keep saying, I don't think that falls within the scope of the question. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
