Author
Message
sebois
Winter is coming.
Offline
Posts: 3632
Feedback: 100% (6)
Posted: 7/20/2012 8:56:45 AM

THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT
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?
Begin the day with a friendly voice.
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 46501
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 8:58:33 AM
Originally Posted By sebois:
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.
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*
LarryThePirate
Member
Offline
Posts: 1960
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 9:26:00 AM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By sebois:
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.
What lies behind us and lies before us are small matters compared to what lies right to our faces.
sebois
Winter is coming.
Offline
Posts: 3633
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 10:10:55 AM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By sebois:
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.
Begin the day with a friendly voice.
psgt2
Offline
Posts: 947
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 10:34:25 AM
Unless a incent bystanders gets hurt there is no report on it.
victor71
Offline
Posts: 278
Feedback: 100% (103)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 11:12:17 AM
Google Dr. Gary Kleck.
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 46513
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 12:48:13 PM
Originally Posted By sebois:

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.
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
bassackwards
Offline
Posts: 2018
Feedback: 100% (59)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 12:49:51 PM
Most attacks happen when there are no bystanders
Commando_Guy
Member
Offline
Posts: 3023
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 12:53:37 PM
[Last Edit: 7/20/2012 12:54:01 PM by Commando_Guy]
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By sebois:

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

If the enemy is range, so are you.
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 46515
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:03:00 PM
Originally Posted By Commando_Guy:

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
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
bugonawindshield
Offline
Posts: 114
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:04:53 PM

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By sebois:

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.
LightningII
Member
Offline
Posts: 6394
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:06:00 PM
tell your opponent that there are no innocent bystanders when some kook decides to take on the world.
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 46516
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:18:02 PM
Originally Posted By bugonawindshield:

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
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
AcidGambit
Offline
Posts: 11696
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:21:55 PM
Originally Posted By sebois:
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.

DragoMuseveni
Tier 1 Laser Printer Repair Tactician
Offline
Posts: 20565
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:24:25 PM
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.
If the price of collateral damage is high enough, you might be able to get paid to bring ammunition home with you
Silver_Surfer
Member
Offline
Posts: 18093
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:30:09 PM
Try not to get noticed.
Furyataurus
Be a Fountain, not a drain
Online
Posts: 21249
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:30:09 PM
Originally Posted By sebois:
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.
HK USP 9 w/Trijicon night sights
HK USP COMPACT 40/357Sig w/TLR-1
Remington 870 6+1
Marlin 336C 30-30
MSAR STG-556
Remington 700 5R .308
Remington 700 300 win mag
TescoVee
Straight Shooter
Offline
Posts: 517
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:33:22 PM
Armed society = Fewer incedents requireing the use of force.
Bullets in a firefight are like candy in kindergarten; bring enough for everyone or you are going be in trouble.
Ridgerunner9876
Member
Offline
Posts: 7982
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:40:02 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By sebois:

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.
tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 46518
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:43:13 PM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:

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
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011
Joe_Pennsy
Partisan Hack
NRA
Online
Posts: 6185
Feedback: 100% (86)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:49:21 PM
Originally Posted By sebois:
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.
Francisco_dAnconia
Offline
Posts: 1064
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 3:24:40 PM
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.
makintrax73
Member
Offline
Posts: 1670
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 3:41:05 PM
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.
KiowaCreekRaider
Member
Offline
Posts: 2696
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 3:52:34 PM
[Last Edit: 7/20/2012 3:53:10 PM by KiowaCreekRaider]
Originally Posted By sebois:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By sebois:
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
DragoMuseveni
Tier 1 Laser Printer Repair Tactician
Offline
Posts: 20567
Feedback: 100% (6)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 3:57:03 PM
[Last Edit: 7/20/2012 3:57:57 PM by DragoMuseveni]

Originally Posted By makintrax73:
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.
If the price of collateral damage is high enough, you might be able to get paid to bring ammunition home with you
Ridgerunner9876
Member
Offline
Posts: 7986
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 4:05:27 PM
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:

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).

tc556guy
Member
NRAInstructorMilitary
Offline
Posts: 46523
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 4:13:21 PM
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:

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.
*post contains personal opinion only and should not be considered information released in an official capacity*

0110001101101100011010010110001101101011