Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Winter is coming.
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2008
  • Posts 3632
  • EE 100% (6)
USA ME, USA
Posted: 7/20/2012 3:56:45 AM EST
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.
Member
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2004
  • Posts 46501
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
NRAInstructorMilitary
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 3:58:33 AM EST
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*
Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Apr 2008
  • Posts 1960
  • EE 0% (0)
USA AZ, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 4:26:00 AM EST
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.
Winter is coming.
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2008
  • Posts 3633
  • EE 100% (6)
USA ME, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 5:10:55 AM EST
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.
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2011
  • Posts 947
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 5:34:25 AM EST
Unless a incent bystanders gets hurt there is no report on it.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2010
  • Posts 278
  • EE 100% (218)
USA OH, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 6:12:17 AM EST
Google Dr. Gary Kleck.

Member
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2004
  • Posts 46513
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
NRAInstructorMilitary
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 7:48:13 AM EST
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
Basic
Offline
  • Joined May 2006
  • Posts 2018
  • EE 100% (93)
USA USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 7:49:51 AM EST
Most attacks happen when there are no bystanders

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2001
  • Posts 3023
  • EE 100% (16)
USA OR, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 7:53:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2012 7:54:01 AM EST 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.
Member
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2004
  • Posts 46515
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
NRAInstructorMilitary
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:03:00 AM EST
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
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Aug 2009
  • Posts 114
  • EE 100% (1)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:04:53 AM EST

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.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jul 2007
  • Posts 6394
  • EE 100% (5)
USA TX, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:06:00 AM EST
tell your opponent that there are no innocent bystanders when some kook decides to take on the world.

Member
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2004
  • Posts 46516
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
NRAInstructorMilitary
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:18:02 AM EST
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
Basic
Offline
  • Joined Feb 2001
  • Posts 11696
  • EE 100% (9)
USA USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:21:55 AM EST
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.


Tier 1 Laser Printer Repair Tactician
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2005
  • Posts 20565
  • EE 100% (6)
USA VA, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:24:25 AM EST
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
Member
Avatar
Bronze
Online
  • Joined Mar 2001
  • Posts 18093
  • EE 100% (6)
USA HI, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:30:09 AM EST
Try not to get noticed.

Be a Fountain, not a drain
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2008
  • Posts 21249
  • EE 100% (1)
USA TX, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:30:09 AM EST
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
Straight Shooter
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Jan 2011
  • Posts 517
  • EE 100% (3)
USA WI, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:33:22 AM EST
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.
Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined May 2009
  • Posts 7982
  • EE 0% (0)
USA OH, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:40:02 AM EST
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.

Member
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2004
  • Posts 46518
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
NRAInstructorMilitary
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:43:13 AM EST
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
Partisan Hack
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2002
  • Posts 6185
  • EE 100% (86)
USA PA, USA
NRA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 8:49:21 AM EST
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.

Basic
Offline
  • Joined Nov 2001
  • Posts 1064
  • EE 0% (0)
USA USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 10:24:40 AM EST
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.

Member
Avatar
Bronze
Online
  • Joined Mar 2009
  • Posts 1670
  • EE 0% (0)
USA IL, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 10:41:05 AM EST
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.

Member
Avatar
Gold
Online
  • Joined Jan 2010
  • Posts 2696
  • EE 0% (0)
USA TX, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 10:52:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2012 10:53:10 AM EST 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

Tier 1 Laser Printer Repair Tactician
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined Oct 2005
  • Posts 20567
  • EE 100% (6)
USA VA, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 10:57:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/20/2012 10:57:57 AM EST 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
Member
Avatar
Bronze
Offline
  • Joined May 2009
  • Posts 7986
  • EE 0% (0)
USA OH, USA
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 11:05:27 AM EST
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).


Member
Avatar
Gold
Offline
  • Joined Dec 2004
  • Posts 46523
  • EE 100% (3)
USA NY, USA
NRAInstructorMilitary
Link Posted: 7/20/2012 11:13:21 AM EST
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
Top