# Criminal shootings



## PhotonGuy (Mar 2, 2015)

From the shooting classes I've taken I've been told that criminals are usually bad shots. There are exceptions to that but from what I've been told criminals that use guns are not that different in most people that own or use guns in that they get a gun and shoot maybe a box of ammo and think that they can then solve any problem, or in the criminal's case, cause any problem with a gun. That being said, somebody with good training and a good gun that they're skilled with should be able to take on most criminals who are usually going to be lousy shots. Like I said, there are exceptions but most criminals I've been told fall into the category of being bad shots.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 2, 2015)

Interesting, that is not what I learned in my CCW classes.  Linking to an article that is similar in language and description to what I learned.  
Self-Defense Tip Training vs. Experience - The Truth About Guns


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 2, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> From the shooting classes I've taken I've been told that criminals are usually bad shots. There are exceptions to that but from what I've been told criminals that use guns are not that different in most people that own or use guns in that they get a gun and shoot maybe a box of ammo and think that they can then solve any problem, or in the criminal's case, cause any problem with a gun. That being said, somebody with good training and a good gun that they're skilled with should be able to take on most criminals who are usually going to be lousy shots. Like I said, there are exceptions but most criminals I've been told fall into the category of being bad shots.



Would that not imply the bad shot criminal would go for a weapon that could negate that. IE a shotgun or MP.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 2, 2015)

Criminals are people. That means they're going to run the gamut from World Class Sniper to Complete Bonehead (like the one I treated in the wee hours of the morning today, who shot himself in the leg while trying to break into a business). 
And in a gunfight, pretty much everybody becomes a rotten shot anyway.

If you're taking classes that make ridiculous unsupportable assumptions like "all criminals are bad shots", I'd look for a different class.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Would that not imply the bad shot criminal would go for a weapon that could negate that. IE a shotgun or MP.


 
The vast majority (something like 98% IIRC) of firearm crimes in the US involve a handgun.

Edit:
On quick factchecking of this statement it is something like 88% of firearm murders are commited by a handgun.  I'll keep looking as a percentage of all crime, but 98% does seem high.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Would that not imply the bad shot criminal would go for a weapon that could negate that. IE a shotgun or MP.



The idea that shotguns do not need to be aimed is a myth.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 2, 2015)

I was never taught that all criminals are bad shots. As I said in my first post there are exceptions. A good example of an exception would be the case of Platt and Matix back in the mid 80s who were both highly trained and both had served in the Army. In 1986 they had a big shootout with the FBI and although they were both killed, so were two FBI agents and a whole bunch of others were medically retired. So yes sometimes you will come up against a criminal or criminals who are highly skilled shooters such as Platt and Matix but that is rare. Platt and Matix were an extreme exception.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 3, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> The idea that shotguns do not need to be aimed is a myth.



I'll keep that in mind.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 3, 2015)

Who is to say criminals don't take classes or use gun ranges either?


Dirty Dog said:


> The idea that shotguns do not need to be aimed is a myth.




Just as well it's a myth, we'd be in trouble up here when the grouse and pheasant shooting season started otherwise


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Who is to say criminals don't take classes or use gun ranges either?


Because lots of people who own or use guns think that just having a gun and ammo is enough and that you only need a minimal of training. You will even find police officers and soldiers with this mindset. So with people thinking that a gun and ammo is enough and they think that they only need a minimal amount of knowledge and skill that would be most people in the gun community including criminals.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 3, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> You will even find police officers and soldiers with this mindset




Now why would they think that when they are obviously trained?  And of course you have proof that people think this way?

Just a little thing to please me?...Please don't start a sentence with 'because', it sort of hurts.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 3, 2015)

I have no statistics on what percent of criminals are bad shots but I am not about to believe their shot will not hit me if they point  a firearm at me.  Heck I'm not about to think it is unloaded or that they are not going to pull the trigger.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Who is to say criminals don't take classes or use gun ranges either?
> 
> 
> 
> Just as well it's a myth, we'd be in trouble up here when the grouse and pheasant shooting season started otherwise



Er are raisins not the most effective method laced with poison lol


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 3, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> I have no statistics on what percent of criminals are bad shots but I am not about to believe their shot will not hit me if they point  a firearm at me.  Heck I'm not about to think it is unloaded or that they are not going to pull the trigger.



Yeah makes sense. Must be a difficult presumption.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 3, 2015)

Transk53 said:
			
		

> Er are raisins not the most effective method laced with poison lol



No they mistake the raisins for rabbit poo! And there is a moral for the thread there......


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> No they mistake the raisins for rabbit poo! And there is a moral for the thread there......



Er use Napalm?


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 3, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Who is to say criminals don't take classes or use gun ranges either?


Or enlist in the military to bring the combat skills they're taught back to the streets...  
Gangs in the military


----------



## Tgace (Mar 4, 2015)

In general, the "average street thug" with a cheap Bersa .380 or  Hi-Tech 9mm IS a "bad shot". Or more accurately an "untrained shooter". But they will still have a better chance of shooting you than you think. The reason they seem so good is (IMO) twofold.

First they typically have the advantage of initiative. Usually the badguy is the one making the decision to shoot. They have the OODA Loop advantage. It's a LOT easier to be a better shot than your opponent when you get to decide when to pull the gun, and shoot when YOU want, while the other guy has to react.

Second. These guys don't give a $%^& who or what they hit. They get to point the gun in any direction, and at any person or group of people they want, and unload in the general direction. This is usually from close range, with you having to react/catch-up with their actions.

Yeah, yeah, I've read the reports in the police trade rags talking about how the average gang-banger spends more time "on the range" shooting his crap gun at a wall in some project "warzone". But I believe the reasons above are more likely than "Ice Cube OG" having anything approaching effective and legitimate training.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 5, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Now why would they think that when they are obviously trained?  And of course you have proof that people think this way?


At least in this country, police officers don't receive that much mandatory training with firearms. At a standard police academy you only get a week and a half of training with guns and then once a year they have a mandatory qualification test that involves shooting at paper targets. There is so much more you've got to know to be a police officer that very little time is spent with mandatory firearms training. I know and have spoken with police officers and with people who work in gun shops who know lots of police officers.



Tez3 said:


> Just a little thing to please me?...Please don't start a sentence with 'because', it sort of hurts.



And why does it hurt? You shouldn't be so sensitive, especially with stuff people say over the internet.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 5, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> Or enlist in the military to bring the combat skills they're taught back to the streets...
> Gangs in the military



Things must be changing. Back in the 80s the case of Platt and Matix were considered the exception.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 5, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> And why does it hurt? You shouldn't be so sensitive, especially with stuff people say over the internet.



It hurts because your teachers will be crying over such bad English......the point of good English is to make it intelligible and say what you mean, when you post up 'because' you aren't qualifying the answer. Good English is important not for the grammar as much as making yourself understood clearly.

Hey, who knew police officers had so much training eh, must be good true the gun shop man says so.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 5, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> Things must be changing. Back in the 80s the case of Platt and Matix were considered the exception.


No, they weren't.  The military has a long history of denying the gang presence and activity within the military -- even in the face of blatant evidence.  See, for example, this article.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 5, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> It hurts because your teachers will be crying over such bad English......the point of good English is to make it intelligible and say what you mean, when you post up 'because' you aren't qualifying the answer. Good English is important not for the grammar as much as making yourself understood clearly.


picky picky picky



Tez3 said:


> Hey, who knew police officers had so much training eh, must be good true the gun shop man says so.



Not man, men. I've known many men who work in gun shops and I've known many police officers. As a matter of fact, its not uncommon for people who do work in gun shops to be current or retired police officers. I've also known many shooting instructors who work with and sometimes teach police officers. So I know what Im talking about when I talk about how much mandatory training police officers get.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 5, 2015)

jks9199 said:


> No, they weren't.  The military has a long history of denying the gang presence and activity within the military -- even in the face of blatant evidence.  See, for example, this article.



That article is dated 2007. The FBI Miami shootout occurred in 1986 so yes there were cases back then of criminals with prior military training such as the FBI Miami shootout but Im not sure of that many other cases like that back in those days. Things might be different now and things might've been different in 2007. Even in the 90s things were different but in the 80s supposedly it was rare to find criminals as skilled as those in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. As it was, even by military standards Platt and Matix were considered really good.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> picky picky picky



Indeed, I have this little quirk in that I like what I read to make sense.................I'm so glad though that you think you know what you are talking about so everyone else is wrong even the police officers.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 6, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> From the shooting classes I've taken I've been told that criminals are usually bad shots.



A criminal doesn't have to be a good shot in order to pose a serious threat.  

Most criminal-involved shootings are going to take place at very short ranges, where poor mechanics, poor coordination, etc., aren't going to be nearly as much of a factor compared to one that takes place at 50+ feet.  It's difficult to miss a target if one is standing just a few feet away from it.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 6, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> That article is dated 2007. The FBI Miami shootout occurred in 1986 so yes there were cases back then of criminals with prior military training such as the FBI Miami shootout but Im not sure of that many other cases like that back in those days. Things might be different now and things might've been different in 2007. Even in the 90s things were different but in the 80s supposedly it was rare to find criminals as skilled as those in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout. As it was, even by military standards Platt and Matix were considered really good.


Did you actually read the article?  The author describes his experiences in Vietnam.  The article discusses the origins of the POBOBs who became the Hells Angels as military vets.  (Lots of Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs have a heavy active or veteran military membership...)  You want more history?  Jesse & Frank James were Confederate soldiers before becoming outlaws. 

You're overgeneralizing an overgeneralization when you say criminals are bad shots or untrained.  SOME criminals most certainly rely on firing lots of bullets with little concern for where they rounds go.  Some can actually shoot.  And then there's just the reality of crazy luck; bad guy wings a shot over his shoulder with his off hand, and will hit the cop chasing him.  You can call that Murphy's Law as regards criminal shooters...


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 7, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Indeed, I have this little quirk in that I like what I read to make sense.................


I am not going to change how I post just because of your little quirk. If you don't like how I post that's your problem.



Tez3 said:


> I'm so glad though that you think you know what you are talking about so everyone else is wrong even the police officers.



I never said the police officers are wrong, Im saying I heard what I heard from police officers, and from other people who work with and teach about the use of guns. If anything, you're saying the police are wrong because you're contradicting what they told me.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 7, 2015)

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not going to change how I post just because of your little quirk. If you don't like how I post that's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the police officers are wrong, Im saying I heard what I heard from police officers, and from other people who work with and teach about the use of guns. If anything, you're saying the police are wrong because you're contradicting what they told me.




Well, why would you want intelligent people to understand you anyway?

'I heard what I heard' okay then that's alright isn't it.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 7, 2015)

Here it is mabye one shoot a year for cops.

There is a conformation bias that suggests carrying a gun makes you safe from a bad guy who carries a gun. So therefore you have to shoot better.

There is a drill where you engage 3 people behind you by spinning around and shooting them. I mean you would really want to be the better shot there.


----------



## Skpotamus (Apr 28, 2015)

I've helped RO a shooting range for officers doing a combat shooting course of fire, and helped with them qualifying.  I can tell you they run the range from competent to terrifyingly inept in their gun handling abilities.  

Many of the officers barely qualify.  The local dept has been getting better since their new instructor took over, he doesn't allow the "old standard" for range qualifications.  Their standard course of fire is 48 rounds, one time a year.  They shoot at 3, 7, 15 and 25 yards.  For the 15 yard target, they are allowed to lean against something for support.  At the 25 yard target, they are allowed to rest their gun on something.  A standard, B-27 silhouette target is used.  Anything inside the 8 ring is 0 points.  Anything outside the 8 ring is minus 1 point.  They start off with a perfect score, then drop as their shots go astray.  The "old standard" that their previous RO used is the one used by many depts across the state.  They only score holes in the target.  So, the standard qualification consisted of most officers drawing their guns, then emptying their 48 rounds into the dirt in front of the target, earning them a "perfect" score and qualification.  The first year he told them that if he couldn't count the holes in the paper, it counted as a miss, he said he literally had less than half of the dept qualify.  He had to put in a lot of mandatory training classes to get officers to qualify, (which he said complaints were filed about).  He also added in a requirement that the officers have to clean their gun in front of him at the range, because they had officers who'd been carrying that particular sidearm for as long as 8 years, and didn't know how to field strip it, much less clean the thing.  

Let's just say the entire experience did not make me feel safe when it came to police firearms proficiency.  Especially when I saw the videos of the gangs practicing room clearing in abandoned apartment buildings.  After that, suddenly, hearing/reading stories of officers firing dozens of rounds and not hitting their adversary made sense.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 28, 2015)

Skpotamus said:


> The local dept has been getting better since their new instructor took over, he doesn't allow the "old standard" for range qualifications.  Their standard course of fire is 48 rounds, one time a year.  They shoot at 3, 7, 15 and 25 yards.  For the 15 yard target, they are allowed to lean against something for support.  At the 25 yard target, they are allowed to rest their gun on something.  A standard, B-27 silhouette target is used.  Anything inside the 8 ring is 0 points.  Anything outside the 8 ring is minus 1 point.  They start off with a perfect score, then drop as their shots go astray.  The "old standard" that their previous RO used is the one used by many depts across the state.  They only score holes in the target.  So, the standard qualification consisted of most officers drawing their guns, then emptying their 48 rounds into the dirt in front of the target, earning them a "perfect" score and qualification.  The first year he told them that if he couldn't count the holes in the paper, it counted as a miss, he said he literally had less than half of the dept qualify.  He had to put in a lot of mandatory training classes to get officers to qualify, (which he said complaints were filed about).  He also added in a requirement that the officers have to clean their gun in front of him at the range, because they had officers who'd been carrying that particular sidearm for as long as 8 years, and didn't know how to field strip it, much less clean the thing.


Sounds like a good instructor.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 28, 2015)

Skpotamus said:


> I've helped RO a shooting range for officers doing a combat shooting course of fire, and helped with them qualifying.  I can tell you they run the range from competent to terrifyingly inept in their gun handling abilities.
> 
> Many of the officers barely qualify.  The local dept has been getting better since their new instructor took over, he doesn't allow the "old standard" for range qualifications.  Their standard course of fire is 48 rounds, one time a year.  They shoot at 3, 7, 15 and 25 yards.  For the 15 yard target, they are allowed to lean against something for support.  At the 25 yard target, they are allowed to rest their gun on something.  A standard, B-27 silhouette target is used.  Anything inside the 8 ring is 0 points.  Anything outside the 8 ring is minus 1 point.  They start off with a perfect score, then drop as their shots go astray.  The "old standard" that their previous RO used is the one used by many depts across the state.  They only score holes in the target.  So, the standard qualification consisted of most officers drawing their guns, then emptying their 48 rounds into the dirt in front of the target, earning them a "perfect" score and qualification.  The first year he told them that if he couldn't count the holes in the paper, it counted as a miss, he said he literally had less than half of the dept qualify.  He had to put in a lot of mandatory training classes to get officers to qualify, (which he said complaints were filed about).  He also added in a requirement that the officers have to clean their gun in front of him at the range, because they had officers who'd been carrying that particular sidearm for as long as 8 years, and didn't know how to field strip it, much less clean the thing.
> 
> Let's just say the entire experience did not make me feel safe when it came to police firearms proficiency.  Especially when I saw the videos of the gangs practicing room clearing in abandoned apartment buildings.  After that, suddenly, hearing/reading stories of officers firing dozens of rounds and not hitting their adversary made sense.


That's a bizarre qualification course...  Never seen or heard the like, though that's far from saying it's impossible to exist.

In Virginia...  There are several possible courses of fire, covering ranges from 3 yds to 25 yds, shooting in a variety of positions (prone, kneeling, and standing, with or without cover); passing score is 70%, and if it's not on the paper, you don't get the points.  The one we tend to use where I work is a 50 round course.  At the 5 yd line, you fire a total of 2 rounds in 3 seconds from the holster, for a total of 12 rounds.  You then fire a string of 6 in 8 seconds, then 4 with your primary hand only in 8 seconds, and another 4 with your support hand only in 10 seconds.  At the 15 yard line, it's 2 rounds in 3 seconds from the ready gun for a total of 6, then another string of 6 in 12 seconds.  Finally at the 25 yd line, it's 6 rounds kneeling and 6 standing in 45 seconds, with the use of the barricade to simulate cover mandatory for the standing rounds.  Scoring is 5 points in the bottle, 3 if it's on the paper and zero if it's a complete miss.  That course, obviously, is designed for a pretty "standard" target range.  Some of the others involve more movement, but you obviously need a range designed to let you do that...


----------



## AlphaBJJ (Apr 28, 2015)

Look at the numbers in the FBI's latest study of violent offenders.  They hit way more than you think.  

They nearly all describe a target based focus with tendency to concentrate on pressing the trigger as fast as possible.  Granted, they aren't working about missing some rounds, but they are the bad guys and don't have to.  That does not mean that they are not accurate.  Enough lead in the air and their chances go up considerably.

Even as far back as 09 in the same study, published in the book "Violent Encounters" the data suggest that the average armed offender practices about 12 times per year with their handgun.  That's once a month.  Consider that most progressive police departments will train line officers 4 x's per year and you can start to see part of the problem.  

Now, they may not be at a range.  They could be at a gravel pit, alley, etc.  But they are pressing the trigger.  Also, consider how indoctrinated into a culture of violence they are.  You might have never faced violence before, they do regularly.  This provides a real advantage in terms of dealing with stress responses.  

So, they are dangerous and can hit you.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 29, 2015)

I am aware now that lots of criminals and gang members are undergoing good training with weapons. Some even have members that are in the Army or that have been in the Army and will teach the gang what they learn. Police might only train 4 times a year in their department but lots of police probably do lots of training on their own in addition to that. I believe most Army training is done with rifles, Im not sure just how much is done with handguns whereas I would think most police training as well as most shootouts are with handguns.


----------

