Why You (Probably) Should Not Carry A Weapon

[Steve]

You're mistaken in believing that the police train regularly. They do not, unless they're doing so as individuals.

I never said they train regularly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am not an American nor do I live in the U.S nor am I in law enforcement or anything.

But speaking just for myself, I can say that if I had the legal right to carry a firearm, I would do so and I would tell my wife to do so as well.
I hit the shooting range in Switzerland several times a year since I work in Switzerland but do not own any guns.

Since the amount of knife attacks, gang rapes as well as shootouts here in Germany where I live, has increased rapidly since the big migration influx, I say that this is eventually all about surviving. I think that a gun, if someone is well trained on it or not, can perhaps be the only way of going out of a situation alive.

Americans have quite a big privilege by being able to carry and buy guns this easily, even your strictest states or cities are a thousands times more relaxed on guns compared to Germany or other european countries. Its just me, but I think that any American who does not feel safe, should carry a gun, simply because he can... If I would live in the U.S, I would barely leave my house without a German firearm of my choice nor would my wife.

For me its a tool like anything else, used to make you go home alive when it happens.

That being said, martial arts are an important tool over here as well, since one can't legally carry a firearm.

It's interesting you talk about how high the crime rate is in Germany. By all the statistics I can find, it's several times higher in the US, in all categories. The UN site's numbers are similar to the others I saw: Country list | dataUNODC

 

[drop bear]

It's interesting you talk about how high the crime rate is in Germany. By all the statistics I can find, it's several times higher in the US, in all categories. The UN site's numbers are similar to the others I saw: Country list | dataUNODC

Homicides?

Because otherwise reporting plays a part in those figures

 

[Bayroum]

It's interesting you talk about how high the crime rate is in Germany. By all the statistics I can find, it's several times higher in the US, in all categories. The UN site's numbers are similar to the others I saw: Country list | dataUNODC

Never said the crime rate in Germany is higher than the U.S, but it has peaked massively in some regions while oddly in the overall country it has dropped since the 90s, in Germany that is.

However, reporting is a big issue here. For example, Police officers are not allowed to share (with anyone at all) if a crime involves someone with a refugee status, hence I say some of the statistics are flawed anyway.
I rather trust what I see in my daily life and hear from my circle of friends and colleagues.

Generally people don't feel safe here anymore and some areas even get locked down at night due to certain people gathering there and committing one crime after an other. These people however can't be recorded as they usually have no papers and for some reason the authorities don't monitor their criminal history nor put the commited crimes in any statistics.
I don't really want to say what kind of people as I asumme I would get banned on here.

The type of crime has statistically however changed and increased when it comes to rape and violent crimes in general. This is what most concerning in my opinion.

 

[Steve]

You're mistaken in believing that the police train regularly. They do not, unless they're doing so as individuals.

A little bit more time now to respond, and having a keyboard and not a phone helps. As I mentioned earlier, I never intended to suggest that cops are well trained, or that they train regularly. Though I will admit that I'm a little surprised that's a point on which we all seem to agree.

But anyway, I'll summarize what I was trying to say, so that you can at least make your snarky comments in response to what I actually meant.

1: I've never seen any data that suggests that training has a positive impact on gun accuracy. Inconclusive at best. It's the sort of logic that pervades martial arts training.
2: The only evidence either way that I can think of was an update to the 2008 NYPD study by RAND. I may be misremembering, but what I recall is that they implemented some additional training requirements in response to the initial RAND study, without any real significant change in results.
3. It's difficult to do that sort of longitudinal analysis because the accuracy statistics aren't readily available, and you'd need to have basically two studies done on a particular police department.
4: While cops aren't required to train much, civilians often aren't required to train at all. I would guess that some cops are better trained than other cops, but as you say, they would do so as individuals. The only real difference is that the baseline for cops is slightly higher than many civilians, because they have at least a minimum training standard. The point being that accuracy studies for cops is directly analogous and helpful when trying to understand civilian accuracy.

Nothing earth shattering. Really, the only thing you and I seem to disagree on is whether or not shooting hundreds or thousands of rounds at the range will help improve someone's accuracy above about 25% in a crisis. I haven't seen anything that suggests that it does. I think the most we can reasonably say is that training "might" help... but as others have pointed out, that depends on the training. And 25% accuracy, based on what we've seen in the various police studies in LA, Texas, NY, etc, suggests that 25% is pretty optimistic.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

A little bit more time now to respond, and having a keyboard and not a phone helps. As I mentioned earlier, I never intended to suggest that cops are well trained, or that they train regularly. Though I will admit that I'm a little surprised that's a point on which we all seem to agree.

But anyway, I'll summarize what I was trying to say, so that you can at least make your snarky comments in response to what I actually meant.

1: I've never seen any data that suggests that training has a positive impact on gun accuracy. Inconclusive at best. It's the sort of logic that pervades martial arts training.
2: The only evidence either way that I can think of was an update to the 2008 NYPD study by RAND. I may be misremembering, but what I recall is that they implemented some additional training requirements in response to the initial RAND study, without any real significant change in results.
3. It's difficult to do that sort of longitudinal analysis because the accuracy statistics aren't readily available, and you'd need to have basically two studies done on a particular police department.
4: While cops aren't required to train much, civilians often aren't required to train at all. I would guess that some cops are better trained than other cops, but as you say, they would do so as individuals. The only real difference is that the baseline for cops is slightly higher than many civilians, because they have at least a minimum training standard. The point being that accuracy studies for cops is directly analogous and helpful when trying to understand civilian accuracy.

Nothing earth shattering. Really, the only thing you and I seem to disagree on is whether or not shooting hundreds or thousands of rounds at the range will help improve someone's accuracy above about 25% in a crisis. I haven't seen anything that suggests that it does. I think the most we can reasonably say is that training "might" help... but as others have pointed out, that depends on the training. And 25% accuracy, based on what we've seen in the various police studies in LA, Texas, NY, etc, suggests that 25% is pretty optimistic.

25%? Meaning 25% of shots hit intended target? For my CCW basics class we had to shoot over 90% in each category to pass. That was 3m, 7m, and 25m. We shot from hip, with non dominant hand and while backing up. On an advanced handgun skills class we had much more training which included starting the draw with the firearm already stovepiped or in some other states of malfunction to include clearing the jam and putting accurate shots on multiple targets from a bad position while being timed. If you want to see what civilians do for training look up three gun competitions. Taran tactical does some pretty good stuff.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

A little bit more time now to respond, and having a keyboard and not a phone helps. As I mentioned earlier, I never intended to suggest that cops are well trained, or that they train regularly. Though I will admit that I'm a little surprised that's a point on which we all seem to agree.

But anyway, I'll summarize what I was trying to say, so that you can at least make your snarky comments in response to what I actually meant.

1: I've never seen any data that suggests that training has a positive impact on gun accuracy. Inconclusive at best. It's the sort of logic that pervades martial arts training.
2: The only evidence either way that I can think of was an update to the 2008 NYPD study by RAND. I may be misremembering, but what I recall is that they implemented some additional training requirements in response to the initial RAND study, without any real significant change in results.
3. It's difficult to do that sort of longitudinal analysis because the accuracy statistics aren't readily available, and you'd need to have basically two studies done on a particular police department.
4: While cops aren't required to train much, civilians often aren't required to train at all. I would guess that some cops are better trained than other cops, but as you say, they would do so as individuals. The only real difference is that the baseline for cops is slightly higher than many civilians, because they have at least a minimum training standard. The point being that accuracy studies for cops is directly analogous and helpful when trying to understand civilian accuracy.

Nothing earth shattering. Really, the only thing you and I seem to disagree on is whether or not shooting hundreds or thousands of rounds at the range will help improve someone's accuracy above about 25% in a crisis. I haven't seen anything that suggests that it does. I think the most we can reasonably say is that training "might" help... but as others have pointed out, that depends on the training. And 25% accuracy, based on what we've seen in the various police studies in LA, Texas, NY, etc, suggests that 25% is pretty optimistic.

I think that the military has training standards for firearms that can show that training improves accuracy of fire under stress. There are surely some training studies for this. Clearing rooms and running trainees through shoot house scenarios makes a world of difference when it comes to achieving firing discipline. Im pretty sure we can agree that we would prefer to have a trained person behind us in the stack when the shooting starts.

 

[mograph]

I think that the military has training standards for firearms that can show that training improves accuracy of fire under stress. There are surely some training studies for this. Clearing rooms and running trainees through shoot house scenarios makes a world of difference when it comes to achieving firing discipline.

I think the idea is that the training has to be under stress .. as much as possible, to mitigate reduced accuracy under stress.

 

[Bayroum]

I think the idea is that the training has to be under stress .. as much as possible, to mitigate reduced accuracy under stress.

I don't know about the U.S. But when I was in the German military (which is also a NATO military) we almost always did firing drills under stress, sleep deprivation as well as being on a low body temperature since I was with the mountain infantry and trained in the alps, we often had to go into frozen lakes and such, and afterwards do shooting and CQB training.

If your clothes are wet and you can barely feel your hands plus haven't slept properly for days and get pressurised by instructors and flashbangs going off next to you, you have a hard time to accurately hit anything, yet we had to hit lets say 10 targets out of 12, two in the chest and one in the head, every other result was not acceptable in my specific unit and required soldiers to retake these kind of " tests ".

We had to participate in such drills using the Pistol as well as rifle. (P8 and G36, some the G3 as well).

 

[Steve]

I think that the military has training standards for firearms that can show that training improves accuracy of fire under stress. There are surely some training studies for this. Clearing rooms and running trainees through shoot house scenarios makes a world of difference when it comes to achieving firing discipline. Im pretty sure we can agree that we would prefer to have a trained person behind us in the stack when the shooting starts.

Id be interested in reading them, if you can point me in the right direction.

 

[Steve]

25%? Meaning 25% of shots hit intended target? For my CCW basics class we had to shoot over 90% in each category to pass. That was 3m, 7m, and 25m. We shot from hip, with non dominant hand and while backing up. On an advanced handgun skills class we had much more training which included starting the draw with the firearm already stovepiped or in some other states of malfunction to include clearing the jam and putting accurate shots on multiple targets from a bad position while being timed. If you want to see what civilians do for training look up three gun competitions. Taran tactical does some pretty good stuff.

25% in an incident, not in training.

 

[Dirty Dog]

A little bit more time now to respond, and having a keyboard and not a phone helps.

Smartphones are great, but only for really short replies.

As I mentioned earlier, I never intended to suggest that cops are well trained, or that they train regularly. Though I will admit that I'm a little surprised that's a point on which we all seem to agree.

I misinterpreted then. Using firearms is a very small part of the job. So it makes sense that a very small amount of training time is devoted to that subject.

But anyway, I'll summarize what I was trying to say, so that you can at least make your snarky comments in response to what I actually meant.

There wasn't anything snarky about my reply. Or is this just you looking for a chance to make your own snarky comment?

Nothing earth shattering. Really, the only thing you and I seem to disagree on is whether or not shooting hundreds or thousands of rounds at the range will help improve someone's accuracy above about 25% in a crisis. I haven't seen anything that suggests that it does. I think the most we can reasonably say is that training "might" help...

If you reread what I wrote, I said training "can" help, not "will". How much will depend on about a bazillion factors. The only certainty is that training isn't going to make accuracy worse.

but as others have pointed out, that depends on the training. And 25% accuracy, based on what we've seen in the various police studies in LA, Texas, NY, etc, suggests that 25% is pretty optimistic.

If it's less than 25%, then that would argue in favor of even larger magazines.

 

[drop bear]

25%? Meaning 25% of shots hit intended target? For my CCW basics class we had to shoot over 90% in each category to pass. That was 3m, 7m, and 25m. We shot from hip, with non dominant hand and while backing up. On an advanced handgun skills class we had much more training which included starting the draw with the firearm already stovepiped or in some other states of malfunction to include clearing the jam and putting accurate shots on multiple targets from a bad position while being timed. If you want to see what civilians do for training look up three gun competitions. Taran tactical does some pretty good stuff.

Shooting a target.

Which probably makes my point that the training isn't very transferable to live fire.

Which makes sense as drills generally are not transferable to live situations.

 

[drop bear]

If it's less than 25%, then that would argue in favor of even larger mamagazines.

Exept you have a responsibility not to miss.

Be Sure of Your Target and What's Beyond It
Don't shoot unless you know exactly what your shot is going to strike. Be sure that your bullet will not injure anyone or anything beyond your target.

 

[Steve]

If you reread what I wrote, I said training "can" help, not "will". How much will depend on about a bazillion factors. The only certainty is that training isn't going to make accuracy worse.

If by “can” you mean “might” then we agree, as long as it’s in the same category as other things that may just be superstition. I didn’t/don’t think that’s what you meant, though.

If it's less than 25%, then that would argue in favor of even larger magazines.

A terrific example of a non sequitur.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Shooting a target.

Which probably makes my point that the training isn't very transferable to live fire.

Which makes sense as drills generally are not transferable to live situations.

Sure, but are you saying you have to get in gunfights to have any accuracy above 25%? Then why train people? Why not just put them in gunfights to let them learn? Because they get killed. You don’t just go jump in the octagon without any training either. Come on now, you were in the military, would you be able to perform well without any drills to prepare you? That’s just silly.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I think the idea is that the training has to be under stress .. as much as possible, to mitigate reduced accuracy under stress.

Sure, that’s what they do in the military.

 

[Steve]

Sure, but are you saying you have to get in gunfights to have any accuracy above 25%? Then why train people? Why not just put them in gunfights to let them learn? Because they get killed. You don’t just go jump in the octagon without any training either. Come on now, you were in the military, would you be able to perform well without any drills to prepare you? That’s just silly.

I get your logic. There's another way to look at this.

Consider the structure and support airmen, seamen, and privates have around them. My brother was airborne. He went to basic training, then to advanced infantry training, and then jump school. His first assignment was in Panama, and they sent him to jungle combat school there. After all that training, they're still just a new guy in a unit with limited autonomy. That was also his first combat experience, during Operation Just Cause.

Unless things have changed, after three or four years of experience, you are deemed competent and may be promoted to a junior NCO rank where they will be responsible for other people.

It's the same in MMA. You don't throw them into the octagon until they've had several lower level fights against other up and coming fighters of roughly the same experience level, until they demonstrate they can apply the skills at a higher level.

In both situations, you have people who are trained, then given an opportunity to apply their skills in context, then train some more as their expertise grows.

With guns, you do a nice job of outlining why this just isn't practical. So, expertise stalls at (best case) the functional beginner stage.

So, the question is, what if this just reiterates the original point of the thread, which is that "you" (not you specifically, but the generic "you") probably should not carry a gun? If you are unlikely to ever use a gun, then maybe you shouldn't have one. If the statistical likelihood you will shoot 3 or more bullets into someone or something you didn't mean to for every 1 bullet that hits the target... to me, that's an argument you are unfit to carry a weapon. Certainly not a justification for making you more of a public hazard.

This is analogous to martial arts training, where folks think they're going to get really good at fighting by doing things that superficially resemble fighting. I think someone in the black belt thread used the term "functional beginner" for a black belt. In my experience, "functional beginner" would be the best case scenario for the average gun owner, regardless of the time they spend on the range practicing.

All of that said, I'm sincerely interested in the military studies you mentioned. I'd be very interested to check those out.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

This makes sense for most people. I get where you are coming from here. I will search for the studies I read. It’s old and may have been revised, but it’s referenced in some shooting manual I have. I may just email a buddy. In any case there are anecdotes that point to either point of view. Not long ago a civilian shot and killed an active shooter in a mall with his concealed handgun. The active shooter was armed with an ar 15. The civilian had no military or police background. The civilian neutralized the active shooter with 8 shots on target at 40 yards. The active shooter killed 3 and wounded two. The civilian neutralized the active shooter in less than 15 seconds after the shooting started. This one anecdote flies in the face of the stats in the study quoted. It’s not the only one, but it is rare. In one case the police shot and killed a civilian who had just moments before brought down the actual shooter using his own handgun. ALERRT did a study looking at around 460 attacks (23 were with knives) and how they ended. In 64 of these civilians were what ended the attack but most of those did not use a firearm but rather physical force. Maybe fighting skills are more important in this context? In any case, a person can’t punch kick or tackle someone at 40 yards. I have a good friend that can reliably and consistently hit a paper plate at 200 yards with any center fire handgun we put in his hand. It’s amazing how he can do it effortlessly. Granted, he has shot a lot of people in combat, but he didn’t learn that skill in combat, he learned it with practice. I have very little doubt that he can do it under stress. I can reliably hit a 10 inch target at over 1000 yards with a 7.62x51 rifle in 15 mph winds repeatedly. Tennis balls at 600 yards is a breeze. I don’t know and have never heard of anyone that can do it without training. Now to be fair, no one is shooting at me these days but I have hit targets moving at 7 mph through cover at 745 yards. I challenge anyone to do it without training, good luck to them. Even “functional beginners” with extremely accurate rifles and using a kestrel with a spotter generally cannot do it even after training specifically for that. I may be comparing oranges and apples here. Rifles and pistols are different in use and application. Taking fire from distance is significantly different than CQB distance for many reasons, a guy trying to stab me is entirely different from a guy shooting at me from the same distance. I’m off on a tangent now…

 

[Steve]

This makes sense for most people. I get where you are coming from here. I will search for the studies I read. It’s old and may have been revised, but it’s referenced in some shooting manual I have. I may just email a buddy. In any case there are anecdotes that point to either point of view. Not long ago a civilian shot and killed an active shooter in a mall with his concealed handgun. The active shooter was armed with an ar 15. The civilian had no military or police background. The civilian neutralized the active shooter with 8 shots on target at 40 yards. The active shooter killed 3 and wounded two. The civilian neutralized the active shooter in less than 15 seconds after the shooting started. This one anecdote flies in the face of the stats in the study quoted. It’s not the only one, but it is rare. In one case the police shot and killed a civilian who had just moments before brought down the actual shooter using his own handgun. ALERRT did a study looking at around 460 attacks (23 were with knives) and how they ended. In 64 of these civilians were what ended the attack but most of those did not use a firearm but rather physical force. Maybe fighting skills are more important in this context? In any case, a person can’t punch kick or tackle someone at 40 yards. I have a good friend that can reliably and consistently hit a paper plate at 200 yards with any center fire handgun we put in his hand. It’s amazing how he can do it effortlessly. Granted, he has shot a lot of people in combat, but he didn’t learn that skill in combat, he learned it with practice. I have very little doubt that he can do it under stress. I can reliably hit a 10 inch target at over 1000 yards with a 7.62x51 rifle in 15 mph winds repeatedly. Tennis balls at 600 yards is a breeze. I don’t know and have never heard of anyone that can do it without training. Now to be fair, no one is shooting at me these days but I have hit targets moving at 7 mph through cover at 745 yards. I challenge anyone to do it without training, good luck to them. Even “functional beginners” with extremely accurate rifles and using a kestrel with a spotter generally cannot do it even after training specifically for that. I may be comparing oranges and apples here. Rifles and pistols are different in use and application. Taking fire from distance is significantly different than CQB distance for many reasons, a guy trying to stab me is entirely different from a guy shooting at me from the same distance. I’m off on a tangent now…

All of that makes sense. And you're right about the anecdotes, which is why I think the larger the data set, the more reliable the conclusions. In the various studies of officer involved shootings, some of them had 100% accuracy, but they only fired one shot that happened to hit. Similarly, some had 0% accuracy for the same reason. But in the aggregate, the numbers start to reveal something more reliable.

For a long time, finding any real data on guns was very difficult. The reasons for which could be perceived as political. So, I'll just leave it with I'm glad that over the last dozen or so years, we're starting to get some meaningful, statistical data that supports more objective analysis.