*New Scientist*, he writes:

There is some ambiguity over how many gunshots have been fired at James Bond because, in many gunfights, it is not clear who the shots are aimed at. However, by my reckoning, in the 22 Bond films to date, there have been at least 4662 shots fired at our hero. A static well-aimed shot would almost certainly have proved lethal, but assuming all 4662 were "on the run", the probability of a single fatal shot is about 5 per cent. That is, the chance of a single shot missing is 0.95, and hence the probability of all shots missing is 0.95^{4662}or 1.4 × 10^{-104}, which is as close to zero as makes no difference.

Link -via Say Uncle | Image: United Artists

Newest 5 CommentsApplying a blanket probability only works if you're calculating the odds of a random person surviving that many random gunshots from random people at random distances. The odds of a particular person surviving a specific set of gunshots is totally different, as it constrains the shooter, ranges, and target.

Abusive comment hidden.(Show it anyway.)actually it means that even using your average, he would have been shot 233 times already (Fatal shots)

*and how many other times would he have been shot with serious injuries besides death, such as paralyzing shots, blown out knees, hands, etc.

combine that with the fact that 2 or more "non-fatal" shots can together cause death

Thats not even taking into account the commenter above me, which should also be considered ........nice try though, and if the original poster trusts those odds I invite you to my house anytime and I bet I can get with with 6 or less ;)

Abusive comment hidden.(Show it anyway.)Abusive comment hidden.(Show it anyway.)(at least they used a Walther but it's a far cry from a PPK)

Abusive comment hidden.(Show it anyway.)And the reasoning is far from absurd; its called conditional probability. The author of the article calculated was the probability of Bond being hit if 4662 random shots were fired at him (using a questionable probability as mentioned before). But the question asked is the odds of him surviving those specific 4662 shots. The difference is subtle but important, as the actual question implies a set of conditions. To calculate that correctly, you'd need to calculate the odds for each individual shot (your odds of hitting a target at 10 yards is totally different than your odds at 100 yards, and the accuracy of a machine is different from a pistol).

This is why its so easy to deceive people with statistics. The precision of the question you're asking makes a big difference, as does the randomness of your data set.

Oh, and as for the glib comment about being sure you can hit me in 6 shots or less? I'm guessing that might change if I'm shooting back at you. Fine motor control drastically decreases when your heart rate spikes. Unless you've had extensive training to keep your heart rate low under life threatening conditions, whatever accuracy you might have at the range is going to drop dramatically. As a simple example, if you ever watch Top Shot, you'll see many professional shooters miss shots at static targets because they force them to have elevated heart rates prior to shooting in some of the challenges.

Abusive comment hidden.(Show it anyway.)Login to comment.