Capacity, Hit Rate and Success. A Look at the Probabilities.

[briandg]

You should keep in mind two things. Police officers are dependent on and skilled at situational awareness.

Police officers are trained to some degree, I believe that almost every police organization will require every sworn officer to qualify. A police officer that can't serve in an emergency situation, even if his only responsibility is the evidence locker is a waste of resources.

With the literally hundreds of thousands of people who walk around half drunk, texting, absorbed on their company or carrying a burden, none of these hundreds of thousands of people could properly respond, especially if their training is inadequate. To aggravate the situation, these shmoes who wander in a daze are targeted. They pop out their seven shot .380 and are at a huge disadvantage. I hope that no cop on the planet is as lame as many of the concealed carrier. heck, I hope that they are better than me. I have weak spots.

 

[SA1911]

I care far more about how many times I might get hit than how many times I might hit a bad guy. My getting shot would screw up a lot of good fishing.

 

[Overkill777]

In my opinion you are way over thinking this. I don't think you can calculate the outcome of a gunfight in any meaningful manner. There are WAY too many variables.

 

[SA1911]

Overkill777,

The only metric that matters is surviving.

 

[OldMarksman]

In my opinion you are way over thinking this.

In what way?

I don't think you can calculate the outcome of a gunfight in any meaningful manner.

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

There are WAY too many variables.

Yep.

John put it this way:

Maybe this is an easier way to think of what the graphs do.

They can't tell us if we will succeed. They can provide insight into scenarios where success is very improbable. They can give us an idea of what kinds of scenarios (based on the three parameters of hit probability, number of shots required and capacity) are "workable" and which ones aren't. They allow us to vary those three parameters to see how they affect the workability of the scenario.

 

[SA1911]

Don't get in gunfights and you'll live a lot longer.

 

[Green Lantern]

I use 16+1 myself.

 

[Prndll]

What are the statistical probabilities of finding yourself in a liquor store that is in the process of being robbed by someone holding a gun that is more interested in cash/liquor and less interested in actually hurting someone?

What is the degree of likelyhood that a woman being attacked by a man (with serious intent) will be able to stop him with a .380 snub even if she manages to prevent him from taking it from her?

I'm all for the idea of carrying more when possible. But, show me where a car jacking is less likely when the criminal/thug is in a hurry and needs to get away when the car being jacked is 30 years old driven by a 60 year old with a firearm in the glove box.

I'd be curious to see statistics on the probabilities of someone licensed for concealed carry being able to stop their home from being robbed while at work and seeing it all take place via Iphone app. (no shots fired)

What are to probabilities of success when a gunfight breaks out between six criminals and two civilians that have called 911 and have cops on the way ten minutes out? In a busy parking lot? At a diner at 11:00 with slow business? With experienced criminals that are heavily armed?

I could go on and on. There simply are too many variables and one can never actually be fully prepared. It should be understood though that an empty gun isn't going to fire. So make every shot count. This is why it is so important to get in as much range time as possible.

 

[JohnKSa]

Prndll,

The graphs are not about statistics, they are about probability calculations. There is no "data" contained in the graphs, they are the results of straightforward combinatorics/probability mathematics.

All of your questions are about data/statistics. That is, they deal with the collection of data regarding real world occurrences and the analysis of that collected data. They are good questions, but they are not relevant to the graphs.

Let me see if I can put this another way that might make it simpler to understand.

First of all, just for a minute, let's forget about self-defense, about guns, and about gunfights. Forget about criminal activity, attackers, defenders, law enforcement, survival and death.

Let's say that your goal is to win a game of chance and you know that your chance of winning the game is 3 chances in 10. That is, if you play the game 1000 times, you are likely to win about 300 times.

Now, let's say that you have only enough money to play the game 6 times and you need to win it 2 times in order to have enough to eat dinner tonight.

What are the chances of your eating dinner tonight?

The graphs will let you "calculate" those odds.

Now, some people will see how being able to perform that kind of calculation could provide information that can be related to choosing the capacity of a carry gun. People like that will find the graphs interesting and perhaps even useful. If you find yourself in this category, then enjoy the graphs.

Other people will look at the graphs and (correctly) state that there's no way that they could accurately predict the outcome of real-world gunfights. People like that will not find the graphs interesting or useful because they don't understand what they're for or how to use them. If you find yourself in this category, then the most productive response is probably to take comfort in the fact that there are many other interesting, informative and entertaining firearms-related topics to be discussed.

 

[OldMarksman]

Good way to express it, John!

 

[Nanuk]

Other people will look at the graphs and (correctly) state that there's no way that they could accurately predict the outcome of real-world gunfights. People like that will not find the graphs interesting or useful because they don't understand what they're for or how to use them.

That is a pretty broad brush. So you are saying because someone does not agree with them they do not understand them? That is quite condescending.

 

[JohnKSa]

So you are saying because someone does not agree with them they do not understand them?

A person can not disagree with them if they understand them because there is nothing controversial or incorrect about them. They are simply probability calculations which have been accurately performed and presented in graphical form.

If someone claims that 1+1 = 2, a person can only disagree with that assertion if they don't understand it. The calculations that created the graphs (and the explanations required) are more complicated than 1+1 but the general idea is the same. If someone correctly points out that 1+1 won't give the right answer when the person has 3 items instead of just 1 and 1, they're not disagreeing with the calculation, they're either missing the point of performing the calculation 1+1, or misunderstanding the explanation.

It is only when one ascribes to the graphs more or different capability than they have (i.e. doesn't understand them) that it's possible for disagreement to arise. For example, if one believes that they are intended to predict gunfight outcomes or calculate the amount of provisions required for a 3 person mission to Mars (which are misunderstandings of the capability and the intent behind the graphs) then one could disagree with those premises but the disagreement isn't with the graphs, but rather arises from a misinterpretation of their capabilities and purpose.

 

[Nanuk]

A person can not disagree with them if they understand them because there is nothing controversial or incorrect about them. They are simply probability calculations which have been accurately performed and presented in graphical form.

You cannot use a mathematical equation to predict hit rate in a gunfight. There are far too many variables.

 

[JohnKSa]

I believe that is an accurate statement. However, it is not an indictment of the graphs because they aren't intended to do that and don't do it.

This is precisely what I was trying to say with my previous post. While your statement is correct and you perceive it to be disagreement with the graphs, the disagreement isn't with the graphs or the premise of the graphs. In fact, it is based on a misunderstanding arising from a misinterpretation or preconception of what the graphs can do and what they are intended to do.

The graphs do not/can not/are not intended to predict hit rates in gunfights.

 

[Prndll]

There is no disagreement as I read these graphs. There is an interest in graphs that say something else I guess. I have no doubt of their usefulness for their intended purpose. Getting deeper into the science of it all is part of my pursuit.

1+1=2 and I am absolutely locked into that mathematical constant as any deviation throws off everything. Just as there is a need for zero to make it all work. This might be a failing on my part or it could be what keeps me firmly grounded in reality. Unless you wish to discuss things on a more esoteric or philosophical footing.

However, statistics are some of the easiest things that can be manipulated to say anything desired.

 

[JohnKSa]

Unless you wish to discuss things on a more esoteric or philosophical footing.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. There's nothing philosophical or especially esoteric about the graphs. The math is fairly straightforward even if it's not something that's commonly taught in highschool and even though the results are not particularly intuitive.

However, statistics are some of the easiest things that can be manipulated to say anything desired.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data. In applying statistics to, e.g., a scientific, industrial, or social problem, it is conventional to begin with a statistical population or a statistical model process to be studied.

The graphs do not deal with statistics. They are not based on a statistical population, they do not constitute a statistical model, nor do they represent the results of the analysis of real world data sets. They are simply the results of probability/combinatorics calculations.

A person doesn't need to understand probability, combinatorics or statistics to understand the results presented in the graphs. However, without at least a basic understanding of what those three fields are, and how they differ from each other, it is somewhat unlikely that it will be possible to provide accurate or relevant critiques of the function/generation of the graphs.

 

[JC57]

I get the graphs. They are a great tool to help one quickly visualize a particular probability, given two assumptions. The choice of assumptions is up to the user of the graphs.

You pick your assumptions (how many "effective" hits you need, and what you think your chances are of making those "effective" hits), and then the charts just tell you what your probability is of making that MANY hits.

It is up to the user of the charts to decide what they think is a reasonable number, and a reasonable chance. That's where the hard work comes in. You would need to perform experiments or collect real-world data to determine those two numbers.

The charts aren't anything different than the old math tables we used to use before there were pocket calculators.

 

[Pond James Pond]

It is up to the user of the charts to decide what they think is a reasonable number, and a reasonable chance.

This is my take-home on this. I'm not a mathematician. I prefer real world to conceptual and hypothetical, but I can see how this can help.

It gives you an idea in a scenario that you can at least imagine (one attacker, two attackers etc) and gives you an idea of how much divine intervention you'll need to off-set carrying a 5-shot snub (or 6, in my case).

From there you can decide what is the worst case you want to be able to handle with some degree of confidence and what you may or may not need to do to off-set that. For example, being limited to only revolvers for carry if I want to have a readiness of condition 2 or higher, John's advice to me was to work on improving the probabilities of making all of those 6 six shots count by working (a lot! ) on my draw, accuracy and follow-ups.

The graphs give you a set picture that is not beyond the realms of plausibility and each must then decide how applicable that picture is to them.

 

[Mobuck]

The idea behind being armed is to STOP whoever is threatening you. Now, I'd be fine if 3 misses accomplishes that goal-in fact it would likely be a windfall liability wise. The follow up to this is I don't intend for those 3 misses right up front to be a major part of my on board ammo supply.