if someone pulled a gun on you

[Valithor]

To live in fear is to lose your freedom. You're not living at all..

[Ryu]

I would fight because if you were to run, you are most certanly liable to get shot in the back. Normally, if you don't run, if they havn't shot you in the first 30 seconds or so, they won't do it at all.

 

[JerryLove]

You're making a couple of assumptions here, and they are not safe assumptions.

 

Not really. I started a point-by-point, but realize that your comments in this post are already addressed. Sufficient to say, that I was not offering the advice to people confronted with 20mm grenade launchers nor artillery... I would not recommend disarm techniques against tanks nor aircraft... Sorry if I was not clear that the scope of my commentary was built on the single attacker with a sidearm.

How about the fact that police officers train shooting at moving targets from a distance,does that mean what they are training is useless,if most times the bullet will miss when a person is running?

 

Police miss more times than they hit. Look at the Diallo case: 4 police officers fired 41 rounds at a relatively stationary target and less than half hit.

 

Perhaps you shoulc look at the actual statistics when arguing against someone working from real numbers.

Criminals that carry weapons and have experience in using them seem to have no problems shooting at police officers while in a car chase and same goes with the police officers shooting back at the criminals.

 

In movies perhaps. Name a single police officer shot by a criminal in another car during a chase.

 

Actually, Martial_artist and I agree (because we are both looking at the actual statistics); and he's done an excellent job or retort; so rather than be redundant, I'll step back and let the man work

[Warp Spider]

Again you make the comparison between the attacker and a police officer. Unless you are in fact being attacked by a police officer, that comparison has no grounding.

 

Generally speaking, a seasoned criminal will be a much better shot than a police officer. Most of the time if someone pulls a gun on you, it's not the first time they've pulled a gun, and likely not the first time they've gunned down a fleeing victim. Police often have relatively little real experience. Many of them have never opened fire on a suspect. The shooting range helps, but it is no replacement for experience. Perhaps you could actually try this against someone with a fair bit of shooting experience. (using simunitions) You could even do it with a paintball gun. I suspect you will find that it is not that difficult to hit the victim repeatedly. If it is, you're probrably not doing it right.

 

Unlike police officers, most attackers will have no qualms about sending a veritable hail of gunfire in your direction, not to mention the fact that they would probraby just shoot you as soon as you started running.

 

Over 90% of rapists have looked at pornography. From that we can infer that the majority of people who look at pornography are rapists. Observe how statistics are completely meaningless, especially when those statistics aren't even related.

 

Running from a person with a gun is just plain dangerous. If you cooperate, there is a good chance you will survive. It's not 100%, but still, it's a lot better than your chance of surviving when you run, which is rather low unless there is cover nearby, or the guy doesn't have the balls to actually shoot you.

[Martial_Artist]

Generally speaking you have no clue what you are speaking about. This made completely obvious by your lack of factual evidence and you inability to make any relevant comments pertaining to fact.

 

Generally speaking, thugs do NOT shoot better than police.

 

90% of rapists view pornography. To say that 90% of people who view pornography are rapists is a false reversal of a statistic. It proves nothing, other than you cannot find a statistical base from which to argue.

 

Submitting to an assailant is more dangerous than fighting back. This is a proven FACT. Let me spell it out for you: F-A-C-T. It happens every year, 2.5 millions cases of such each and every year. Submitting actually puts you at a higher risk of dying/suffering injury than resisting and forcefully fighting back. How can I state this? Simple: it has been researched and studied, and more importantly, documented. Unlike your argument I state what has been proven and documented. Not what I assume is to happen or believe will happen because I saw it in a movie.

 

You make plenty of assumptions that generalize and assume that a statistic has been researched. For example you frequently state, generally speaking, rather low, most attackers will, most of the time, etc. How can you make such a statement with out fact to back those rationalizations? To infer a ratio of probability without actually having weaighed data is not only reckless but often misleading.

 

Unless you can bring fact to discuss to the table, referring to what you think will happen--that is, making the assumption that you are not a defensive pistol trained person, or have extensive experince in the reality of firearms--you cannot sufficiently explain your position beyond, "I believe it so."

 

I have consistently given factual data supported by logical deduction and experience in support of my position. Unless you can prove otherwise with data and fact, not emotion, then you have no point and will continue to make no point.

 

Therefore, for me to continue this debate I must be presented with data. Not what Hollywood tells you a thug can do.

 

MA.

[Drunken Monkey]

ok, just me adding my two bits.

 

police train in firearms use yes? they shoot targets, a lot of targets.

 

they do this stationary shooting at stationary targets.

 

generally speaking, they are good at this right?

 

but how accurate is their shooting?

 

from what i gather, not very. often a few inches off the mark and in groups that range from 2" to 6" right? and this is at what, 20 feet? and these are guys that practice a lot.

 

i don't think criminals spend much time at a firing range, which is why they tend to fire haphazardly, in bad posture, with bad aim...

 

of course i am just making assumptions here. feel free to illustrate the holes in my argument.

[Warp Spider]

Martial_Artist, you claim that I don't have facts but the 'fact' is, you don't either. When was the last time you gunned down a fleeing victim? Alternatively, how many times have you fled from a gun-wielding assailant? NOTHING can be inferred from statistics or studies that are so unscientific. The only way of getting actual facts about how difficult it is to shoot a fleeing target is to try it under controlled conditions. Case studies are fun, but unscientific and invalid as an argument. A suspect recently ascended to the roof of a hotel during a standoff and was shot, while moving, in the head, with the first shot from a policeman. Does this case prove anything about the accuracy of police officers? Of course not, and neither do the cases you list.

 

Similarly, studies of how accurate people have been in recorded instances is no indication of how accurate a person you will be faced with will be.

 

As mentioned, perhaps you could actually try this. Get a gun, and some simunitions, and try shooting at a moving target. I recommend rapid semi-automatic, gradually increasing your lead on the target as you fire rounds. This is a fairly reliable method of hitting a target with a great deal of lateral motion, but that's just my experience. If you want to really know how easy or difficult it is to hit a target, I'd advise spending some time behind a muzzle, instead of behind a keyboard looking up statistics.

[JerryLove]

Martial_Artist, you claim that I don't have facts but the 'fact' is, you don't either. When was the last time you gunned down a fleeing victim? Alternatively, how many times have you fled from a gun-wielding assailant?

If he had (and some of us have), it would only be anticdotal.

NOTHING can be inferred from statistics or studies that are so unscientific.

 

That's utterly rediculious. A greater percentage of people who resist live than people who cooperate... therefore resisting yields higher odds of success as a general rule....

 

You want to argue the conclusions? Go for it. The data is readily available; show the statistical error in reading it. I'm a former DBA and and happy to get as in-depth as you like.

The only way of getting actual facts about how difficult it is to shoot a fleeing target is to try it under controlled conditions.

That would only tell you what the results are under controled conditions.

 

I can't believe you are arguing "reality cannot be trusted to determine what reality is like"... You are also contradicting yourself. You claim he must shoot someone to know, but now you claim that you need a controlled study (in both cases discounting looking at teh actual reality).

 

So which is it? Personal experience or lab-based testing?

Case studies are fun, but unscientific and invalid as an argument.

But he's not citing case studies.. he's citing general statistucs... do you even understand the difference?

Similarly, studies of how accurate people have been in recorded instances is no indication of how accurate a person you will be faced with will be.

 

They provide counter-examples to calims... but the basis of the argument is on real statistical data... not case studies.

As mentioned, perhaps you could actually try this. Get a gun, and some simunitions, and try shooting at a moving target. I recommend rapid semi-automatic, gradually increasing your lead on the target as you fire rounds. This is a fairly reliable method of hitting a target with a great deal of lateral motion, but that's just my experience.

 

Yes, that is just your experience.. on a range... under controlled conditions... and after railing about anticdotes.

 

And yes, shooting laterally moving targets on a range (or for that matter, shooting skeet) is old-hat. The reality remains that most shots fired on our streets in anger miss. the reality remains that most people shot are not shot fatally, and that most people fatally shot don't drop immediately.

I'd advise spending some time behind a muzzle, instead of behind a keyboard looking up statistics.

I don't know abou martial_artist, but I have spent the time... I can shoot moving targets with a bow as well... your still completely wrong.

[JerryLove]

Let me see if I can sum up your argument:

 

The FBI is wrong about what really happens.

 

The Dept. of Justice is wrong about what really happens.

 

The various police organizations are wrong about what really happens.

 

The NRA is wrong about what really happens.

 

The people I can point to who have shot and been shot are wrong about what really happens.

 

I'm wrong about what really happens.

 

But, with no actual evidene you can point to, *you* are right because you (like so many who disagree with you, such as me) have shot targets on a range.

[Warp Spider]

Uhh, I never mentioned the range in my argument. I was suggesting you do this in a somewhat relistic environment. Controlled conditions does not have to mean a lab, but the situation is different every time in those statistics. Some times the shot may be easy, other times it may be difficult. Those shots of varying difficulty are lumped together and that is why stastics mean nothing.

The FBI is wrong about what really happens.

 

The Dept. of Justice is wrong about what really happens.

 

The various police organizations are wrong about what really happens.

 

The NRA is wrong about what really happens.

 

The people I can point to who have shot and been shot are wrong about what really happens.

 

I'm wrong about what really happens.

 

Exactly. I don't see why you find that hard to understand.

But, with no actual evidene you can point to, *you* are right because you (like so many who disagree with you, such as me) have shot targets on a range.

 

If by targets, you mean people, and by range, you mean the bathroom/basement/bedroom/front yard/driveway, then yes. Non-lethal projectiles are fun! (Always wear safety goggles when being fired upon, BTW.)