Is there statistical research on what works for PD?

[tstand]

Are there research reports on what self defense tools or methods have been successfully used by civilians to defend themselves when away from home? I recently read a research report showing a metropolitan police force has found pepper spray and tasers, in addition to firearms, to be very effective for gaining control over bad guys. It is a statistical analysis based on real world encounters. I’m wondering if a similar analysis has been conducted for civilians. 

For example, how many civilians have attempted the use “X” in an encounter, and what was the outcome? X could be a handgun, rifle, taser, pepper spray, tactical flashlight, knife, martial art, and so on.

Many thanks! 

[tombogan03884]

You aren't trying to "gain control" of the BG, you are trying to stop his attack, period.
You aren't a cop, arrest/ apprehension is not your problem.

[Tyler Durden]

you do understand how difficult it would be just to collect that raw data in the first place, don't you?

[tstand]

I realize there is a difference between trying to gain control of a bad guy, and get away from one. That is why I am asking about techniques and tools used by civilians.

There are so many, many guns, electric devices, fighting methods, etc out there. And yet, I've seen virtually no evidence showing how trully effective any of it is in an actual deadly encounter. Almost everything I run across is all anecdotal, or based on "experts" advice, but I want data compiled from a sizeable number of cases. Maybe it does not exist, I'm just asking whether it does.

[tombogan03884]

I suspect the best source would be the FBI "Crime statistics". But the problem arises from the fact that so many incidents go unreported.
This was shown when researchers tried to come up with hard data on defensive fire arms use, if no shot was actually fired the incident was often not reported.
I assume the same holds true with other items, attacker sees potential victim has some means of defense and goes about their business else where.

[Sponsor]

[JoeG]

While it is an interesting question, I think it is based on a false assumption that there is a best solution. As MB says in the podcast all the time, every solution is a compromise. Size, weight, concealability, your skills, training, attitude, etc.

I have been an emergency responded in industry for a long time. What we stress in training for chemical spills, medical responses, etc. is the same as I hear from MB and the trainers he likes. The most critical skills are in order:

1. Awareness
2. Scene Assessment
3. Bias to Action
4. Application of available tools (guns, knives, running away, etc.)

Us guys want to talk about number 4 all the time cause it is cool and that is where your question is aimed. But it is useless without 1-3. In fact the better you are at 1-3 the easier it is to pick a useful tool.

In my experience, 1 responds to constant preaching (Thank You Michael!), 2 responds to scenario drills (mental or physical), 3. is by far the hardest to teach and comes from experience (this is the value of competition) and 4 is about understanding the limits of what you have at hand.

Long winded answer 

Joe

[tstand]

While it is an interesting question, I think it is based on a false assumption that there is a best solution. As MB says in the podcast all the time, every solution is a compromise. Size, weight, concealability, your skills, training, attitude, etc.

I have been an emergency responded in industry for a long time. What we stress in training for chemical spills, medical responses, etc. is the same as I hear from MB and the trainers he likes. The most critical skills are in order:

1. Awareness
2. Scene Assessment
3. Bias to Action
4. Application of available tools (guns, knives, running away, etc.)

Us guys want to talk about number 4 all the time cause it is cool and that is where your question is aimed. But it is useless without 1-3. In fact the better you are at 1-3 the easier it is to pick a useful tool.

In my experience, 1 responds to constant preaching (Thank You Michael!), 2 responds to scenario drills (mental or physical), 3. is by far the hardest to teach and comes from experience (this is the value of competition) and 4 is about understanding the limits of what you have at hand.

Long winded answer 

Joe

Great response, Joe. Thanks!

[tombogan03884]

I have to disagree with Joe to a point, (it may be because I am misunderstanding part of his reply )
It is a widely held opinion that #1 Awareness, and #2 Assessment will keep you from getting into situations in the first place.
Where I disagree is on #3 which I take to mean "initiative".
The initiative to target a specific person and when and how to commence the attack will always be with the active attacker instead of the passive (in the sense that he/she is taking no action to participate in the event ) target.
My conclusion is that the only areas citizens have input are 1, 2, and 4.
Another thing I think Joe left incomplete is that he posted "Us guys want to talk about number 4 all the time cause it is cool".
He might have added that another reason we focus on that aspect is because it is a GUN forum after all.
All in all I would say it's a thought provoking response.

[Ichiban]

I took #3 "Bias to action" to mean that if things are going downhill rapidly you are going to be doing something (running like hell, finding a defensible position, etc.) other than soiling your pants mumbling "What do I do?  What do I do?  Oh my God, where are the police?"

[twyacht]

An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity. ....Statistically speaking....