Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
8/19/2009 6:39:00 PM EDT
Can someone help?  A few weeks ago I read a study where someone had investigated every shooting that had data available.  It compared the accuracy of LE compared to CC compared to perpetrators.  It showed how perpetrators hit about 70% of intended targets vs LE hit 50-60% and CC MUCH worse.  The point was practice practice practice.  I wanted to read it again, but I forgot if it was here or some other forum.  Did anyone else see the study, and if so, where?  Any help is appreciated!
8/19/2009 6:52:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Can someone help?  A few weeks ago I read a study where someone had investigated every shooting that had data available.  It compared the accuracy of LE compared to CC compared to perpetrators.  It showed how perpetrators hit about 70% of intended targets vs LE hit 50-60% and CC MUCH worse.  The point was practice practice practice.  I wanted to read it again, but I forgot if it was here or some other forum.  Did anyone else see the study, and if so, where?  Any help is appreciated!


If you ever get the info, never give it away.if it proves that CC shoot worse, all arguments would be that CC would kill an innocent therefore they should never carry anywhere! Thats the whole argument about guns in parks. At least here anyway. My brother a LEO said there was a shootout and a cop shot over 50 times before killing the guy. How SAD!!!!!

I dont think most perps practice. The usually steal the gun and use whats in it.
8/19/2009 6:57:52 PM EDT
[#2]
The point kinda was that perps had plenty of time on their hands to practice draws and shoot and also had been under fire before, so they were calmer and shot better...emphasizing the need for practice.
8/20/2009 12:39:23 AM EDT
[#3]
Exactly... LE and CC shootings are reactionary.  They are always going to be more stressful, more instinctual, and less accurate.  You can train all you want, but all that goes out the window as soon as one is caught off guard.  Of course training can help... so don't think I advocate for not training.
8/20/2009 6:41:21 AM EDT
[#4]
I will take my chances vs a BG $hit bag who likely doesn't even know if his gun will fire. I like my odds.
8/20/2009 9:44:35 PM EDT
[#5]
There was a study done by the FBI  around a year ago that showed that many  gang bangers are excellent gun handlers and point shooters.  They're cold blooded, quick on the draw, quick to fire and very good at landing hits on their targets.    Much like the gangsters in the 20's, they're familiar with their weapons, practice regularly and know how to keep them functional and are street combat veterans.  Read truthful stories of 20's gangsters like Machinegun Kelly, these modern gang members, as much as we like to make fun of them, are remarkably similar in many way.
The study was originally posted in The Forensic Examiner.  They studied 40 cases of BG's who were convicted cop killers, and here's some of their findings.
1. The offenders were experienced shooters:













Most of the offenders who shot an
officer had prior experience firing handguns. They typically began
carrying a gun when they were between 9 and 12 years old. By the time
they were 17, the vast majority of them were carrying all of the time.
Nearly half of the offenders were involved in shootings (as victim
and/or offender) prior to their assault on an officer. Ten offenders
(all of whom were considered “street combat veterans” and were from
inner city, drug-trafficking neighborhoods) had been involved in five
or more shootings.










2.  The offenders had more experience using deadly force than the officers.













Of note, the offenders had more
experience using deadly force on the street than did their
victim-officers. Only 8 of 50 victim-officers had participated in a
prior shooting (one officer had been involved in 2 prior incidents and
another in 3), with 7 of those 8 having killed a perpetrator.










3.  The offenders practiced shooting more than the officers.













Nearly 40% of the suspect-offenders had
some type of formal training with firearms, primarily from the
military. More than 80% of the offenders included in the study
practiced shooting on a regular basis, averaging 23 intentional
practice sessions per year. It is significant to note that the
offenders actually practiced with their firearms more than the
victim-officers did. The officers averaged only 14 hours of sidearm
training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50
victim-officers practiced regularly, beyond that required by their
department; most of this was in the context of competitive shooting.










4.  The offenders were “surprisingly coldblooded.”













As described by the researchers, the
offenders were “surprisingly cold-blooded,” turning instantly to deadly
violence. On the contrary, the victim-officers were unwilling to use
deadly force as long as they thought they had another option.
Thirty-six of the 50 officers had been in situations where “deadly
force” would have been an appropriate and legitimate response, “but
chose not to shoot.” On average, those 36 officers had been in four
such prior incidents. Unlike the officers, the offenders acted from a
“shoot or be shot” mentality, with absolutely no hesitation about
pulling the trigger. They operated under the presumption that if they
hesitated, they would be killed.







 
8/21/2009 1:20:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
There was a study done by the FBI  around a year ago that showed that many  gang bangers are excellent gun handlers and point shooters.  They're cold blooded, quick on the draw, quick to fire and very good at landing hits on their targets.    Much like the gangsters in the 20's, they're familiar with their weapons, practice regularly and know how to keep them functional and are street combat veterans.  Read truthful stories of 20's gangsters like Machinegun Kelly, these modern gang members, as much as we like to make fun of them, are remarkably similar in many way.

The study was originally posted in The Forensic Examiner.  They studied 40 cases of BG's who were convicted cop killers, and here's some of their findings.

1. The offenders were experienced shooters:

Most of the offenders who shot anofficer had prior experience firing handguns. They typically begancarrying a gun when they were between 9 and 12 years old. By the timethey were 17, the vast majority of them were carrying all of the time.Nearly half of the offenders were involved in shootings (as victimand/or offender) prior to their assault on an officer. Ten offenders(all of whom were considered “street combat veterans” and were frominner city, drug-trafficking neighborhoods) had been involved in fiveor more shootings.

2.  The offenders had more experience using deadly force than the officers.

Of note, the offenders had moreexperience using deadly force on the street than did theirvictim-officers. Only 8 of 50 victim-officers had participated in aprior shooting (one officer had been involved in 2 prior incidents andanother in 3), with 7 of those 8 having killed a perpetrator.

3.  The offenders practiced shooting more than the officers.

Nearly 40% of the suspect-offenders hadsome type of formal training with firearms, primarily from themilitary. More than 80% of the offenders included in the studypracticed shooting on a regular basis, averaging 23 intentionalpractice sessions per year. It is significant to note that theoffenders actually practiced with their firearms more than thevictim-officers did. The officers averaged only 14 hours of sidearmtraining and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50victim-officers practiced regularly, beyond that required by theirdepartment; most of this was in the context of competitive shooting.

4.  The offenders were “surprisingly coldblooded.”

As described by the researchers, theoffenders were “surprisingly cold-blooded,” turning instantly to deadlyviolence. On the contrary, the victim-officers were unwilling to usedeadly force as long as they thought they had another option.Thirty-six of the 50 officers had been in situations where “deadlyforce” would have been an appropriate and legitimate response, “butchose not to shoot.” On average, those 36 officers had been in foursuch prior incidents. Unlike the officers, the offenders acted from a“shoot or be shot” mentality, with absolutely no hesitation aboutpulling the trigger. They operated under the presumption that if theyhesitated, they would be killed.



 


Thanks very much for this post 3rdpig.  Amazing information.

To say it's eye opening is an understatement.

Carrying a gun at 9 -12 years old. Involved in ghetto warfare. Military training. Plus cold blooded with no regard for human life.

The cold blooded thing is something most of us can just imagine, or think we can understand .

Do you  know what cities or areas of the country the majority of these 40 shooting cases happened in?