How do you react?

[jclayto]

first time, long time for this particular area of TFL.

There was a situation here today where a local waffle house was robbed. Two masked men entered waving guns and then proceeded to rob the individual customers before leaving. No one injured.

Here is my question. Say you are a customer carrying your ccw when an incident like this happens. As a CCW holder, what actions do you take? Do you grab your weapon and open fire to protect yourself and others in the restaurant? Do you delay for a few to try to feel out how the incident is going to unfold?

Me.. I see myself most likely un-holstering my weapon and keeping it out of sight ready for immediate use if necessary. I think presenting at this point may make me an instant target but I would love to hear your ideas.

[David Armstrong]

Sit there calmly and quietly, let the BGs finish their business, then finish your waffles and wait for the police to come. Then give the police what information you can. No sense in turning a robbery into a gunfight without some compelling reasons, IMO.

[redhart]

what David said+1

[JasonG]

The less than $100 in my wallet isn't worth a life. Be ready but stay cool and try to get a good description of the BGs.

[Ohio Rusty]

I carry a fake wallet just for that purpose. It has fake bills that look real (play money), and I filled it with those fake credit cards your get in the mail all the time with your 'pre-approved' advertisements. If someone wants my wallet, I'll be happy to give them that one. One quick look and they will think they are getting the real thing. They aren't going to rifle thru the wallet or inspect the contents during a robbery as they are nervous and just want to leave with their plunder.

If they already have their guns out and their nervous fingers on the triggers, I don't think I can out draw and out gun several armed robbers in that situation. The last thing I want to do is create a hostage situation. The best thing I can do is be the best witness I can by getting descriptions of people, cars, direction of travel, etc.
Ohio Rusty ><>

[Keltyke]

Sit there calmly and quietly, let the BGs finish their business, then finish your waffles and wait for the police to come.

Maybe...

SC here, too. In SC, you may only draw and shoot if you are in fear of your life or great bodily injury. You are not a LEO, and your job is NOT to prevent robberies. Your job is to protect your life. You may also draw and shoot if you believe the victim (or any other reasonable person) would do the same in those circumstances. That's a fine line, and if the victim is a devout "anti" you may find yourself hung out to dry. "I'd NEVER use a gun." You're up for murder 2 then.

Now, in a robbery where the BGs have drawn weapons, I believe it is reasonable to assume you may be killed, especially if a gun is pointed at you, "Give me your money or I'll pop one in your a$$." So, if you can get the drop on them, go for it. Watch your backdrop and for gawd's sake, don't hit an innocent. Keep in mind that, once you draw, it's all or nothing. You kill or be killed.

Would I have drawn and shot in that specific situation? I don't know, I wasn't there.

[KLRANGL]

I really think it comes down to the situation... I mean, you got plenty of stories of this happening and no one getting hurt... But then you hear of a Liquor store getting robbed with the one customer getting shot and killed (just because he was there), and the old lady behind the counter getting shot and almost killed... So what do you do? Without being in that situation I guess you just dont know... You never want to kill unless you have to, but as the saying goes: the dead only know one thing... it is better to be alive...
I'd imagine I wouldnt pull unless I saw an immediate threat... Or if my instincts told me bad things were about to happen and I was in the position to end it there, I suppose I would then too... But until it happens you can never say for sure...

[TheNatureBoy]

I agree with David Armstrong. No need to make a bad situation worse if you don't have too.

[SGT-MILLER]

Never start a gunfight over something as paltry as money.

If the robbers starting lining people up on the ground, and saying things like "no witnesses", then it's a different story.

I would give them the money they want, and would try to be the best witness as possible for the police.

[Creature]

It doesnt take very much for a couple of guys already waving guns around during a robbery to start shooting...

Me, I guess I would sit tight and adjust my response to suit the situation as it progresses.

[Recon7]

SGT-MILLER, I never cared for that argument. I think it is being disingenuous. You don't shoot somebody over money, you shoot a person if they are representing a realistic threat to your life or the life of an innocent.

Sometimes you hear stories of a police officer shooting somebody for a minor infraction. Nonsense, the person was caught for a minor infraction and escalated the situation to where the police officer had to shoot.

It is on the judgment of the Armed citizen in the waffle house to determine whether he thinks the armed robbers were likely to shoot somebody. Armed robberies go wrong all the time and I suspect often without warning. Sometimes there is no right answer. One thing to consider is the 2 gunmen may have a "tail gunner" who is either at another table around the corner or in a car with the engine running. Stay Alert Stay Alive.

[SGT-MILLER]

Exactly what I said in my previous post.....................:confused:

You do not shoot someone over a robbery unless it escalates to the point where you feel your live or another's life is in danger.

If you try to engage right away without first studying the situation, you can get yourself killed, and other killed.

Just like in Iraq, not every situation requires guns blazing.

[BikerRN]

Sit there calmly and quietly, let the BGs finish their business, then finish your waffles and wait for the police to come. Then give the police what information you can. No sense in turning a robbery into a gunfight without some compelling reasons, IMO.

I couldn't have said it better.

If the Bad Guys start shooting people then that's a pretty compelling reason. I just hope I'm not one of those shot in the first round of shots fired by the Bad Guys.

Biker

[Hook686]

... There was a situation here today where a local waffle house was robbed. Two masked men entered waving guns and then proceeded to rob the individual customers before leaving. No one injured. ....


and if these robbers discover your firearm while robbing the individual customers ... then where are you ?

[SGT-MILLER]

Depends.

There's too many "ifs" in the scenario.

Are they just asking for wallets, or are they searching everybody?

What are they armed with?

Do they have backup?

Does one of them have a thermonuclear hand grenade?

Does any of them have herpes?

After thinking about this scenario for awhile, I now cannot say for sure what I would do, because without being there, I can't see all the variables.

[easyG]

I would probably draw and shoot them.
Not only would I save alot of folks their hard earned money, I would be doing society a favor as well.

[Tuckahoe]

I would not shoot someone over the stores money. Threaten my kids or my wife and I will shoot you until you are no longer a threat. A waffle house is an early morning/late night scene for all kinds of people and a likely scene for trouble. I simply avoid them.

[Sparks2112]

Being a pretty common frequenter of late night/early morning Waffle Houses I can honestly say I've put some thought into this in the past.

I don't think it's safe to assume there's any such thing as a "good" robbery. If somebody brings a gun for something like that don't you have to assume they're going to use it? (I would assume they would)

I think (but who knows really) I'd try and perform as stealthy a draw as possible, shoot perp #1 3-4 times COM close range once they approach my location, then shift aim/fire to perp #2, wash rinse repeat, as needed.

Location of bystanders relative to BG's and my own location obviously would effect this. I am almost certain though I'd wait until the 1st was too close to miss. I don't know many people who could take 3-4 230gr DT GD's in the chest without rethinking their position on armed robbery, and I'd like to take the 1st one out of the fight ASAP.

[jclayto]

Thanks for all of the great responses, you guys have basically said what I was thinking anyway.. although I didn't want to sound soft etc.. The last thing in the world I want to do is get into a gun fight, the stores money, other peoples money or my money is not worth it. I guess you just have to feel it out and see if you truly feel your life is in danger. I guess without ever being in that situation, it is hard to consider when you think the line has been crossed from robbery to bent on murdering someone. I really enjoy reading this section, thanks for the great information!

[besafe2]

The sad thing all of the Waffle Houses around here have those signs posted "no weapons allowed on premises" so if you are armed you've broken the law. When I was an leo(many years ago) not many nights went by that we didn't get a call to the local Waffle House. So like some one else said I also do not go there.

[Keltyke]

I guess you just have to feel it out and see if you truly feel your life is in danger.

Like our CWP Instructor told us, "If someone has a gun drawn, you must assume they intend to use it. Act accordingly."

[Keltyke]

have those signs posted "no weapons allowed on premises" so if you are armed you've broken the law.

Some in SC have those and some of those aren't legally posted.

[mvpel]

Sit there calmly and quietly, let the BGs finish their business, then finish your waffles and wait for the police to come. Then give the police what information you can. No sense in turning a robbery into a gunfight without some compelling reasons, IMO.
When robbers come in waving guns in people's faces, it's ALREADY a gunfight. Just because they haven't shot anyone yet doesn't mean the "fight" hasn't started.

[Sparks2112]

The sad thing all of the Waffle Houses around here have those signs posted "no weapons allowed on premises" so if you are armed you've broken the law. When I was an leo(many years ago) not many nights went by that we didn't get a call to the local Waffle House. So like some one else said I also do not go there.

Funny, none of the ones around here are posted. ::Shrug::

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The principle is very simple:

Take an action that you think will miminize the risk of grievous bodily harm to those you care about who might be at risk to grievous bodily harm.

-- There is no automatic response in this scenario's time scale.

Also, I might suggest, if one can afford it, some realistic FOF training such that you have some experience with how various actions can go well or awry.

[David Armstrong]

When robbers come in waving guns in people's faces, it's ALREADY a gunfight.
No, it is not. Never ceases to amaze me the number of folks who fail to understand that simple fact.

[Hardtarget]

O.K I'm sitting there, observing...good witness. Waiting. No shooting, yet. Don't draw...they're just gonna' take the money and run.

THEN one robber decides to shoot...and I'm hit center mass!

Guess I was a bit behind the "curve"...that hurt...gonna' leave a scar!

I hope, to all reasonable, I'm never in the wrong place at the wrong time!

Mark

[David Armstrong]

THEN one robber decides to shoot...and I'm hit center mass!
The robber rarely shoots unless there is some reason to do so. Deciding to shoot at a robber ALWAYS gives him a reason to do so. It is a crap shoot either way, just the odds change.

[w_houle]

I couldn't tell you whether I would draw and shoot, or if I would just sit there wishing I had worn brown trousers.

[S832]

You do nothing, let them have the money - most robbers aren't looking to commit a murder and even if they were, you don't interfere until they start shooting.

[rampage841512]

Depends. If I thought I could get them both quickly without getting myself or someone else killed, I'd do it.

If I didn't think that, then I'd likely wait for them to come me, and act accordingly depending on what they did. Maybe try and remove the threat, maybe just hand over the wallet.

If at any point I thought not acting meant me or someone else would die, I'd act. If at any point I though acting would mean me or someone else would likely die, I wouldn't.

We can go back and forth in a thread like this all day. As much as I hate it, no one is going to know the best course of action to take until faced with a particular set of circumstances at a particular time.

Be prepared to for anything and everything, and if you can't manage that then get as close to it as you can.

[Hardtarget]

Two years ago, here in Nashville, there were several robberies in my very near neighbor hood. In three of the events the BG just opened fire after compliance by the clerks. Two were killed...also, one customer was shot while he lay on the floor. I reckon it just wasn't his day.

I'm NOT saying to start shooting as soon as it starts. I agree with what many have said. It depends...you gotta' be there, observe, hope you're reading it right as the robbery unfolds and TRY to stay ahead.

I hope I'm never caught in the middle of one of the robberies!


Mark.

[Stevie-Ray]

The sad thing all of the Waffle Houses around here have those signs posted "no weapons allowed on premises" so if you are armed you've broken the law. Not here in Michigan. Trespassing, a civil infraction, if the greasy spoon wants to press charges. It's a shame some locales decide to allow the signs to extend the laws.

[JohnKSa]

Are these guys just asking for wallets/money or are they searching people? You could determine this by watching the proceedings--assuming that you're not the first one in "line".

If they're actually searching, what are they going to do when they find my CCW? No way to tell unless someone else is carrying too and is before you in "line".

Is everyone going to cooperate or is someone going to cause a ruckus? No way to know the answer to this.

If someone doesn't cooperate will the robbers feel constrained to handle it without seriously injuring or killing the non-cooperative person? No way to know the answer to this.

Are the robbers rational & reasonable? That is, will they be willing to leave with the loot if everyone cooperates or are they in it for the thrill too, like the two kids in Garland who robbed a business owner/employee and then killed them before leaving the scene in spite of the fact that neither victim offered resistance? No way to know this for certain but you might be able to hazard a guess based on their behavior. You can play the odds, but if you lose it will be a small comfort to die knowing that was not the most likely outcome.

This scenario is interesting to provoke thought, but is too open-ended for there to be a "right answer".

[hogdogs]

If a gun is in view I believe that the perp intends to use it. I personally do not feel a gun is for intimidation... thus I will act on such a threat with force if at all possible.
I won't kill a person over a few bucks in my pocket but I dang sure will shoot some one if they brandish a weapon in a violent manner in waffle house...
Brent

[Para Bellum]

Take an action that you think will miminize the risk of grievous bodily harm to those you care about who might be at risk to grievous bodily harm.
well spoken. No two situations are identical. It's always up to you to decide in split-second what to. A key parameter is how likely your action would turn the situation worse than it already is. If howeve, you have a clear chance to stop the threat without a high risk of increasing it, doing so is an option.

Don't ever worry because you didn't interfere. If nowbody got hurt, it you acted perfectly well. Your instincts and reason judged the situation well and everybody is still unharmed.

[David Armstrong]

I won't kill a person over a few bucks in my pocket but I dang sure will shoot some one if they brandish a weapon in a violent manner in waffle house...
And if your deciding to shoot some one who is just brandishing starts a shootout where there would not have been one otherwise, and innocent bystanders get killed....?? People keep missing out on this part of the equation. Given the fact that most robbers indicate that they use weapons primarily to insure cooperation (most folks would be amazed at the number of BGs guns that are not loaded,m do not work, are actually toys, etc.) that is the best way to plan a response. If they indicate that is not their purpose, then the gunfight might be appropriate.

[hogdogs]

with all due respect david a., I do not shoot to initiate a shootout... No wounding or wing shots. If I have an opportunity to draw and fire it will end the shooting risk. After a couple rounds at COM I will be advancing and making sure I have the full attention of the bad people and continuing to eliminate risk.
I also realize I must making the playing field in my favor. These punks of today rely on fear to have their way with society. They rarely expect to be rushed by a redneck with serious intentions to turn the tables on their terrorism. I will not tolerate intimidation, terrorism or bullying from anyone.
Brent

[KLRANGL]

hogdogs, i am in no way in doubt of your shooting ability, but no plan ever survives contact with the enemy... Just because you want it so doesnt mean it always goes down that way. There are many things that can go wrong, especially against numerous perps...

But I do agree that you should never tolerate their terrorism/bullying/intimidation (though not at the expense of others lives)... I figure if I find myself in a strong position to end the scenario with a high probability of success, I'd probably take it... Its just the last thing you want is some innocent to get hit in the cross fire and give the antis that much more ammunition...

[David Armstrong]

If I have an opportunity to draw and fire it will end the shooting risk
As mentioned above, it is amazing how many people have that idea that nothing will go wrong. You MIGHT end the shooting risk. You might INCREASE the shooting risk. A pretty wise man once told me to always plan that the person you are about to fight is at least as good as you are.
I will not tolerate intimidation, terrorism or bullying from anyone.

It is always interesting to see how many people feel their ego is worth getting killed over, or getting others killed.

[tplumeri]

the first thing that comes to mind is the diner scene in pulp fiction.
but the reality is just wait it out.
i dont carry any cash in my wallet, but to protect my personal info i deny having a wallet and hand over the cash in my pocket.
this happened to me twice growing up in NYC (not in a resturaunt, in the subway) and there wasnt any escalation to violence either time.

[Socrates]

I've been mugged, but never robbed. The guy hit me over the head with a Walther PPK/S. IF he had pointed the gun at me, I was going to die, or they were, and, I was going to use my hands. I was much younger then, and such options would happen much slower now. I considered that the key point. Once the barrel is pointed at me, I have to decide if it's a good day to die, and do what I do, or, give control of that over to scumbag.

I consider pointing a gun at someone sufficient reason to be in fear of my life. Given that, I am not going to start something I can't win. On the otherhand, maybe death wouldn't be so bad. I can't answer it for everyone. I am NOT going to give some bad guy with a gun control over my life and death if I can help it. I am NOT going to shoot someone over property, though oddly enough in Kali, if they are stealing your guns, you get a CCW permit, in the hope you will shoot them, rather then BG's get your guns.:rolleyes:

That said, a friend, Sarge in SF, was faced off against a guy he'd known a long time. The BG had a 454, and, concealment/cover behind the engine block of a car. My friend was in the open, with a 41 mag. He didn't shoot, but, he knew the guy, and knew the situation.

I've watched felons go from reasonable to psycho in handcuffs. What are they capable of with a gun pointed at you?

I will say that if you start a gunfight, you better be ready to die that day. If you are, you probably will be faster, and not, but, that's just a theory...

[hogdogs]

I fail to see any relation between ego and refusing to be a victim of violent behavior...
It is actually a constitutional right. The pursuit of life liberty and happiness or some such nonsense. If everyone was to rabidly defend every gift in our constitution then this nation would be stronger and safer...

I also insist I would weigh my options in a situation as originally posted with a little finger nudging the side of self defense jist a tad.

I have been in a few altercations with levels of violence ranging from fists to guns with knives and blunt objects and clubs in the middle and never once ran, never lost my composure (but I might have lost my cool) and in each and every case I did not escalate the situation with forward approach. Most times the aggressor panicked and tried to run, other times it threw them off guard and into defensive posture which they were unable to execute with the same bravado of their initial attack.
One thing I know is I have a severe dislike for pain and the sure way to reduce the influx of pain is to be in close to the aggressor dealing out my own abuse.
Brent

[JohnKSa]

And if your deciding to shoot some one who is just brandishing starts a shootout where there would not have been one otherwise...How in the world could one know ahead of time whether there was going to be a shootout or not?

I agree 100% that IF a person could know that there would be no shootout if he decided to do nothing that doing nothing would be the right choice. However, a person with that kind of supernatural ability to predict the future could put it to better use by making sure that no one was at the robbery location except for police officers when the robbers showed up.As mentioned above, it is amazing how many people have that idea that nothing will go wrong.Oddly enough, that's exactly what I was thinking while I read your post.

You seem to have the idea that if no one offers resistance that nothing will go wrong. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not and there's simply no way to know which way it will play out until it's over.

If you're going to play the odds, the statistics say that resisting violent crime with a firearm offers a better chance of remaining uninjured than simply cooperating.

[JKHolman]

Years ago, I made up my mind to resist being robbed even over the miserable amount of a few dollars. I no longer subscribe to that foolish notion, and am glad not to have tested it. I did have to intervene over an attempted rape - my appearance being enough to scare off the perpetrator. Looking back, I was not psychologically prepared to go at it, so I was lucky on that one [as was the victim]. As mentioned, no one knows how these things will develope, and you have to decide for yourself what action to take, even if that action is passive. I am of the opinion that the action taken by the person involved is the right one because only he is the one in a position to do anything; the rest of us are safely in our homes oblivious to what is going on until we read about it in the papers the next day. Socrates, the fact that you were weighing your options as best you could in such a crisis (as opposed to a situation) tells me you were on the right track. You are doing the best you can with not much to work with (pardon the dangling preposition), and you have very little time to decide. You did better than I would.

- JKHolman

[zippy13]

Interesting thread, more questions than answers. Not having a CCW, I don't know the training prerequisites. Is a situation like this covered in typical CCW training? If yes, is it the same from state to state? Might not armed intervention get you a hero's medal, or an indictment depending on the jurisdiction? I wondered if I was on the same channel as other posters...
Sit there calmly and quietly, let the BGs finish their business, then finish your waffles and wait for the police to come. Then give the police what information you can. No sense in turning a robbery into a gunfight without some compelling reasons, IMO. Sounds reasonable, but there's no way I'm going to be able to stay calm w/ BGs waving guns around.I carry a fake wallet just for that purpose.I thought this was a great idea. But, what if the robbers take a longer look and aren't fooled? Aren't you now the focus of their discontent?
A waffle house is an early morning/late night scene for all kinds of people and a likely scene for trouble. I simply avoid them.A wise decision; but, aren't you're just reducing your possible problems? Any place can be robbed while you're there.
I couldn't tell you whether I would draw and shoot, or if I would just sit there wishing I had worn brown trousers.A plausible reaction.
Are the robbers rational & reasonable?I think this is wishful thinking. IMHO, by deciding to commit an armed robbery demonstrates they are neither rational nor reasonable.
I've been mugged, but never robbed.Am I missing something, here -- isn't mugging a type of robbery?
I fail to see any relation between ego and refusing to be a victim of violent behavior...I think the "ego relationship" isn't in how one would react, but in how one describes his anticipated reaction to others.
Years ago, I made up my mind to resist being robbed even over the miserable amount of a few dollars. I no longer subscribe to that foolish notion, and am glad not to have tested it. +1 for JK

[Socrates]

Thank you Mr. Holman.
I started training in martial arts in about 1977, when surfing. I was always getting confronted by some sort of idiot. I remember one guy trying to pick on Mike Crouteau, a shaper that was about 6'5" and 275 pounds, about 90% of it muscle. I figured if some idiot who weighed 150 pounds would try and pick a fight with him, they would fight with me.
This was further reinforced when I watched a punk at Pleasure Point take off in front of former WWF World Wrestling Champion Don Morrocco, and then turn around and verbally abuse him.:rolleyes: Edicate is the guy behind is the better surfer, and, it was true in this case. Mr. Morrocco was well over 6'4" and 330-340. He threw a stage punch at the guy, about 1/4" from his nose, and, the guy peeed his pants, and started yelling for help. When I stopped laughing, I realized I'd made the right choice in studying martial arts. The guys name was Troy and he maybe weighed 150 pounds, soaking wet.

My skills later saved my butt in Hawaii about 4 times, and, the issue posted above occured in a bowling Alley, Mel's, in Alemeda, in 1994-5. Three guys picked on me, because they though I was friends with the jerk that ran the bowling alley. I was in a bathroom, still in training, and, about 175 pounds. They all were over 230-240, and, I figured I actually had an advantage, since they didn't know who I was, and, because of my training, I reacted differently then they expected. As hogdogs has pointed out, in a confined space, when you are attacked at close range, by changing heights, you can strike very hard, and, be a very difficult target, and, anything you hit is going to be bad guy. I remember thinking of all the training I did, and, thinking this might be a bit of fun.;)
I was worried about the guy behind me having a gun, but, they all seemed to differ to one guy, since he had the gun. When he pulled it, all the rules changed.

Keep in mind, the only way you are going to know someones' intentions is by their actions, and, when most bad guys point a gun at you, the possibility of being shot is much better then the above dreamers would like to think. Police, with vests, cover and tactics are a more difficult target then the average person, and, their perspective is pretty much worthless for a civilian. Their perspective is altered by the many times, thanks to uniform, vest, gun, and backup, they may have survived having guns pointed at them.

One thing I have learned is that fear slows you down. I've spent many years training, and, this comes through loud and clear. To free your body and mind, you have to be willing to pay the ultimate price.

I face kids in the school I teach in now that are gangbangers, and, some are very large. We do not have metal detectors, and, one of these days, I'm afraid I'm going to find myself trying to defend, or break up a fight with deadly force involved. I have a vest, but, it's not suitable for daily wear. I can't get a CCW in my city, or, really haven't tried.

Maybe it's time...

[pax]

"Always cooperate" is a bad plan: http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/09/danger-of-compliance.html

pax

[Wayfarin'Stranger]

Sorry if this offends anyone, but this is just my take on it.

All the guys that have the attitude of "I'm not going to defend a few dollars...." make me think you guys are pretty big pushovers, and easy targets. From what you guys have stated so far, if I was a robber, I'd rob you of everything you had once a week! My point of view is that it doesn't come down to whether someone is trying to rob me of $10.00 or $1000.00, it's still mine and no one else has the right to take it from me. (Although I let the government do it every two weeks :D )

There's no way I'm going to tolerate someone threatening me with deadly force (OP said they were waving guns and that equals deadly force in North Dakota), and just sit there and wait to see if they are going to shoot me or someone else. Let me make my position clear to answer the OP's question, when the guns come out, then they have initiated a gun battle, and I will fight back. There is absolutely no LEO in this country, that is not going to pull his weapon when an individual brandishes a gun anywhere in his/her general direction, and I don't think anything different should be expected of us.




I believe those of us that have obtained concealed weapons permits do so for the simple fact of having the ability to gain the upper-hand, and not be completely defensless against armed aggressors.

[David Armstrong]

I fail to see any relation between ego and refusing to be a victim of violent behavior...
There is none, AFAIK. The issue is when your choice to refuse to become a victim is based on your ego.
It is actually a constitutional right.
Just because one can do something doesn't mean that one should do something.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm sorry to be somewhat rational as compared to emotional. I agree that no one has the right to rob us or bully us, etc.

However, long ago, I took a course in military history from a distinguished major general. He stressed having an overall strategic goal as well as a grasp on tactics and equipment.

My overall strategic goal is to prevent grievous bodily harm to me and others I care about. A retreat or giving up some money to minimize a high probability of harm is preferrable than the harm. The problem is (as mentioned) judging the situation.

Some are easy - if you are by the door and the dude holds a gun on the clerk, you can probably run out. Some would be hard, if they start to search patrons.

Each situation is unique and there is no right answer. However, I think emotional outrage and talking about 'rights' and ego, doesn't really contribute to the actual decision process.

You may think that starting a gun fight that personally goes awry for you contributes to the greater good as it contributes to deterring some other crime elsewhere - if you want to be hurt for that, that is your decision.

I come down, again, to make a cognitive decision as to what action lowers my (and others I care about risks). If I don't know you and you are eating your waffles - I may not care about what happens to you.

The odds are in favor of there not be a shootout in the Waffle House - however, the actual decision of the BG to shoot has factors in it that might negate his or her tendency not to shoot. You have to try to figure that out.

I suppose it is difficult for the gun world to suggest rational thought over just shooting it out. But that's what's it is about. That's why the law use FATS training, etc. Why citizens are offered FOF training, etc. You have to think such that you can make a rational decision.

Folks who say always start the fight as it is their right to start the fight aren't thinking. Saying you never fight is also nonevaluative.

[David Armstrong]

How in the world could one know ahead of time whether there was going to be a shootout or not?
Whhile one can rarely know much with any certainty concerning interpersonal relations, one can (and does) identify certain behavior and actions that give indications of likelihood. For example, one should know that robbers rarely injure their victims if they cooperate. One should also understand that if the BG has not started shooting during the incident it is a pretty good indicator that he is not going to shoot barring some change in the situation.
I agree 100% that IF a person could know that there would be no shootout if he decided to do nothing that doing nothing would be the right choice.
Few things in life are 100%, yet that doesn't seem to bother most of us. There is not a 100% chance you will make it home from your next venture onto the highway, but we play to the odds.
You seem to have the idea that if no one offers resistance that nothing will go wrong.
I don't think I have ever said that. What I have said is that the chances favor that position by quite a bit, and one should keep that in mind when formulating responses. One can usually escalate the response if factors indicate the need, but once one has escalated it is hard to go back.
If you're going to play the odds, the statistics say that resisting violent crime with a firearm offers a better chance of remaining uninjured than simply cooperating.
That has become one of those horribly mis-leading facts, sort of like the antis "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family member" thing. Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher. So yes, if you have a gun and the BG doesn't, things work out pretty good for you. If you have a gun and the BG has a gun, maybe not so good.

"Always cooperate" is a bad plan:..."
Agreed, just as "always fight back" is a bad plan. One should understand the dynamics of violent encounters and respond in a manner that maximizes their potential loss of resources.

There is absolutely no LEO in this country, that is not going to pull his weapon when an individual brandishes a gun anywhere in his/her general direction, and I don't think anything different should be expected of us.

Actually LEOs are generally told that if they are off-duty and out of uniform to be a good witness in these situations and not start a gunfight unless absolutely necessary.

[JohnKSa]

Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher.Your general premise (and your specific rebuttal to my post) relies very heavily on these controlled statistics you mention. I agree that such statistics could be very informative. Please provide a link or other verifiable citation.

Your argument is that the statistics I quoted should be dismissed because they include many situations that are more favorable to the defender than the scenario described here. The problem with that argument (in the absence of actual statistics to categorize the studied scenarios more carefully) is that the statistics I quoted also include many situations that are LESS favorable to the defender than the scenario described here. For example, any one-on-one confrontation with an armed attacker (quite a common scenario) would be far less favorable to the defender than a situation like this one where the defender can blend into the crowd until he chooses the proper time to respond.

I'm CERTAINLY not advocating that people respond with gunplay any time a crime occurs in their presence. What I am concerned about is the apparent attitude that CCW holders are far more likely to cause problems than help solve them. In reality, it's extremely rare for intervention by a CCW holder to do anything other than contribute to a positive outcome.

[Socrates]

HMMM.

One might also consider the gang factor. Hell's Angel's, for example, have an oath where if a fight is started, they all are obligated to get into it, and, stay in it until it's over. I'm not sure if this would apply to a gun fight, but, one might consider this as another factor.

Sometimes not starting something IS the best course of action, but, the only way you can know is to be there, and, know yourself, and, how you will react. A cool evaluation of your chances, and the situation are vital, and, difficult.

[hogdogs]

Kind of glad I was raised amongst the likes of the Banditos, Hells Angels, and Warlocks... rode with a club too. The way it works is not so much "if a fight breaks out they are obligated to stay until it is over..." it is more akin to never leave your brother in jeopardy. Got lots of education and training before I was 18 from the likes of these guys. May well be why I won't be a victim nor tolerate intimidation tactics...
Now as far as the types of "gangs" doin' strong armed and armed robbery they are real quick to dismiss loyalty and revert to every punk for himself... Seen to many robbery vids on youtube where one guy is left wounded while the rest flee to believe many will hang and fight for their "BRO"...

[Microgunner]

The robber rarely shoots unless there is some reason to do so


It's that "rarely" part that bothers me. I believe I'd rather rely on what I know how to do than hope they don't do what they "rarely" do. I don't want to wait until the muzzle's lowered on me before I decide to act. I prefer proactive management to reactive. But you just never know for sure how you may act in such extreme situations.

[Socrates]

hogdogs:

My only experience with the HA's was in SF. Some wannabe's girlfriend started mouthing off, and, some drunk kids talked back. The girls got into it, and, the HA's jumped in, knifed, and almost killed the guy/kid, and then got out.

The kid wouldn't testify, because, and I think they were right, that they were afraid of the HA's coming after them, at their home, and killing them.

I talked to the detectives involved, and, they said the wannabe disappeared, his shop was still there, but, he was gone. Their conjecture was the HA's hated publicity, or, getting into such situations, bad for business, having us chasing them. So, they disposed of the wannabe, and, the entire thing went away...

DA's office wasn't intrested, and, the SFPD had no evidence of any crime...

[hogdogs]

Socrates, That is just one of those cruxes of organized crime groups. Lots of wild hogs have been fed in the swamps of Louisiana, texas and florida in the years since I was 13 years old. Glad i am no longer affiliated with any of them.
Brent

[alloy]

as a retail bike shop owner/mechanic going on 12 years or so, within a short distance of 3 of the 4, sometimes things dont feel comfortable...i think Cooper's condition orange is my natural state. occasionally things have nearly accelerated. probobly why i'm here reading.

[Socrates]

It was suggested in our area, it's likely we had a fatter great white shark...

[DWFan]

David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...

http://newsok.com/article/3270704

[Hondo11]

The comment of "robbers rarely hurt their victims" and it being the rationale to just sit there and comply is ridiculous. Even if 9 times out of 10, they just take the money and leave, I will not be the 1 who they kill. I'm not going to wait and see where I fall either.

And these comments of "well, I'd wait until I felt in fear for my safety/life, etc" are just plain illogical.

The definition of Robbery is (paraphrasing as most states have it written differently) "theft from a person through force or the threat of force." Aggravated Robbery is the same, but with the use of a deadly weapon, or force or the threat of force that causes serious bodily injury and/or death.

By definition, if they are committing Aggravated Robbery, then you SHOULD feel in fear for your life and defend it accordingly.

The last remark that I want to comment on is the "just because they are brandishing a weapon doesn't make it a gunfight" one. That doesn't make tons of sense...wait until they start shooting and put yourself in an even deeper hole? Personally, the gunfight I like to be in is the one where I get the first and only shots. But that's just me.

Shear aggression when it's not expected is something that not many people are hardwired to handle. It's what makes people vapor-lock...including badguys.

And if they only have toy guns or they're unloaded, then that's just even better for me.

[JKHolman]

Easy to see why these threads get shut down.

[Keltyke]

I disagree, JK.

This is a tactical decision that can go several ways. It's a scenario we all should play out in our heads while sitting at a WH enjoying a pecan waffle. "What would I do if..."

We need to talk this out WITHOUT getting personal in our remarks. What one person would do is not what another would do, but we can ALL benefit from each others opinions and suggestions.

[JKHolman]

Keltyke,
the thread is a good one. It's what the "heroes" do with it that cause the moderators to shake their heads.

- JKHolman

[hogdogs]

Not a hero, just a survivor and if I go out I am goin' out fighting for my life!
I must point out something not mentioned yet.... I tend to avoid the element of surprise. never my back to the door (even if wifey poo thinks she is picking the seat) always try to have windows and MUST have a view of the door. This puts precious seconds of decision making time in my court!
Brent

[David Armstrong]

Please provide a link or other verifiable citation.
John, I've done that before in these discussions. If you didn't check them then, why should I dig them back up now for you not to check again?
Your argument is that the statistics I quoted should be dismissed because they include many situations that are more favorable to the defender than the scenario described here.
No. I do not think they should be dismissed at all. I do think they should be considered and used to help formulate a response. I also think they should be looked at in their entirety, as the dynamics do change significantly when one looks at all incidents as opposed to the narrower gun incidents.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

OK, automatically respond to the armed robbery as you might be at risk is one way to look at it.

How about this? Near me there is a restaurant called Jim's - a typical burger and pancake place. It's a large restaurant. I can be seated at a really long distance from the register - with lots of intervening tables.

In the evenings, it is quite full. I go there with my wife for pie and coffee.

A man comes in to the register and pulls a gun. He says: Give me the money.

It is a long way away with about 50 people between us. So do I:

1. Stand up and take the shot - note that around the register - in front, side and in back of the gunman there are probably quite a few folk.

2. Challenge him from a distance.

3. Run up to him.

Tell me how the automatic start the fight, be aggressive, surprise him, high speed aggression tactic works here.

Or is it possible that various scenarios have different contingencies? Cliches that one must act don't really cut in all situations. Nor does automatically just sitting it out. I can reference successful interventions that saved the day.

I think the main point is that you act according to what achieves a goal and not spout a cliche.

[stephen426]

I think there is no easy answer on this one as well.

Secario 1: You comply and hope the bad guys just take the money and leave.
Result a: The bad guys take the money and go. Your wallet is a few buck lighter and no one got hurt.
Result b: They take the money and then shoot the place up. You are behind the curve and get killed.

Scenario 2: You draw on the bad guy and begin shooting.
Result a: You hit the bad guys and the robbery ends.
Result b: The bad guys open fire on you and other patrons and people get killed.

I agree that there is no way to know whether or not the bad guys will or will not start shooting. In my mind, that leaves one option... Gain control of the situation if and when the opportunity presents itself. Of course you have to be aware of what behind your target and hitting bystanders. I am not a police officer or a cowboy, but I don't want to be a lamb to the slaughter either. If people are going to wave weapons around in public, I'm going to have to assume they are ready and willing to use them. To believe otherwise is just plain foolish in my opinion.


David Armstrong... Where are you getting your "facts" from? It would be nice to cite a credible source to support your assertions.

For example, one should know that robbers rarely injure their victims if they cooperate. One should also understand that if the BG has not started shooting during the incident it is a pretty good indicator that he is not going to shoot barring some change in the situation.

[David Armstrong]

David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...
Actually, using unusual and out-of-the-norm examples really just serves to support my point. The reason that was such a big story in 1979 is that is was so unusual, so different, than most robberies.

The comment of "robbers rarely hurt their victims" and it being the rationale to just sit there and comply is ridiculous.
It is absolutely ridiculous to think that man can fly in a machine that weighs several tons, yet it happens regularly. What is ridiculous has no bearing on what the facts are.
The last remark that I want to comment on is the "just because they are brandishing a weapon doesn't make it a gunfight" one. That doesn't make tons of sense...
So, if I am understanding you correctly, any time the police point a gun at a BG and deman he surrender they are engaging in a gunfight? Somehow, that doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

I think the main point is that you act according to what achieves a goal and not spout a cliche.
Exactly. Either response can be good, either response can be bad. Assessing the realities of the situation and making a decision based on what seems to lead to the best outcome is the way to play it.

David Armstrong... Where are you getting your "facts" from? It would be nice to cite a credible source to support your assertions.
The easiest place to start is the Uniform Crime Reports.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There are many criminology and victimology texts as well as original scholarly articles that break down actions in robberies as well as the UCRs.

If one looks at the CJ texts on sale in many college book stores, you can find them.

We can't deny that most armed robberies don't end in shoot outs. In fact, to be nonscientific just watch the news. In San Antonio, almost every night we have a nonshooting armed robbery or two. We also have some gang, romance related shootouts every night.

The point of the stats is to indicate that armed robberies don't necessarily end in gun fights and if one thinks about it, you can take take into consideration when you run down the aisles of the Waffle House shooting away. Yes, it may end in a shooting incident but the difficulty in all these discussions in the implied and necessary gun fight. Knowning what can happens, usually happens and planning for contingencies is what it is all about. You don't get that at the square range.

[AnonymousOne]

I will not tolerate intimidation, terrorism or bullying from anyone.What an absurdly broad definition of the word terrorism.

[DWFan]

Quote:
David, all evidence indicated that these folks were in complete agreement with you about how to behave when faced with armed robbers...

Quote:
Actually, using unusual and out-of-the-norm examples really just serves to support my point. The reason that was such a big story in 1979 is that is was so unusual, so different, than most robberies.

Unusual and out of the norm? Stories like this are on the news on a near weekly basis, Sir. It might have been unique for 1978, but par for the course in 2008. As far as making your point? The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.
You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there. It is a fact that criminals will escalate their actions based on prior successes.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Might we have a source that cites that armed robbers who successful complete a robbery without gun fire then go on to use gun fire?

[buzz_knox]

What an absurdly broad definition of the word terrorism.


Thank Congress circa 1993-94 for that one. After the OKC bombing, they wanted any crime committed with a firearm to be considered terrorism.

[buzz_knox]

I've heard LEOs describe the increased willingness of criminals to eliminate witnesses due three strikes laws.

Perhaps we should inquire of thieves about their conviction status during the robbery? One strike we don't worry, while two we engage.

[David Armstrong]

Unusual and out of the norm?
Yes.
Stories like this are on the news on a near weekly basis, Sir.
What is on the news has little bearing on how common or uncommon an event is. For example, in 2007 the UCR lists 445,125 robberies in the U.S. and 16,929 murders and non-negligent manslaughters. Even if one assumed all murders were the result of robberies, that would be one in about 26. It's not that high, of course, and IIRC the actual number is closer to 1 out of 400, which I think everyone would agree is out of the norm.
The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.
Then you have obviously missed the point, as nowhere do I say one should trust the criminal for much of anything.
You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there.
Again we see a basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works. If you are having success without killing, why change your M.O. to make it harder/worse on you?
It is a fact that criminals will escalate their actions based on prior successes.
No, that is not a fact. Criminals tend to find something that works and stick with it. There is some escalation at times, just as there is some de-escalation, but the norm again is to repeat what works.

[hogdogs]

My use of the word "terrorism" is not based on the government description... It is used because TFL members say "don't shoot the deviant person with a gun because they only intend to scare people... not hurt them..."
Scare really REALLY bad is the definition of terrorize!
If I was in the scenario mentioned with out a firearm or knife I would still attack the punks with my waffle fork!
I refuse to comply with demands from lesser humans. The only way to live for me is to fight crime with force. If no one were to comply with these demands than muggins and robberies would be very rare! BUTCH UP And demand that your civil rights are not trampled by criminals!
Brent

[AnonymousOne]

Scare really REALLY bad is the definition of terrorize!

Care to try again?

ter·ror·ism
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I bolded part of that because of the actual working legal definitions.

[hogdogs]

You clarified for me...
"often" is not a chipped in stone term...
"OFTEN" They are just trying to force folks to come off their wallet!
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing....
Sounds alot like the intended affect of rushing into the waffle house with guns drawn...
You get a cookie for realizing that armed robbery is as much terrorism as blowing up a building.
The first case of "WAR ON TERROR" I can remember is when a young man shot punks on a subway in New York back many years.
Brent

[David Armstrong]

I refuse to comply with demands from lesser humans.
Once again we see that concerns with ego often lead to bad decisions. If you choose to attack multiple offenders armed with guns with your trusty waffle fork, I predict it will likely be a one-time event and will not change the outcome of the robbery, but will result in your family needlessly going to a premature funeral.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing....
Sounds alot like the intended affect of rushing into the waffle house with guns drawn
Except you chose to cut the definition off at a key point. I doubt that rushing the waffle house with guns drawn will have much intimidation or coercive effect on societies and governments. You seem to be confusing "terrorize" with "terrorism."

[FrontSight]

That Oklahoma 1978 killing was repeated around the year 1999 / 2000 in a NYC Wendy's, almost exactly the same. It astounds me what evil lurks in this world.

[hogdogs]

David A., that is a possibility... However I also know that if many of these so called thugs are confronted by a crazy redneck in an instant and violent defense they will show the cowardice they possess. If anyone gets close enuff to receive my goods first hand they are close enuff for me to attack. I will consider the possibility of taking their gun from them. i know these individuals expect utter compliance so I will do my best to throw them off kilter. I will do my best to take his life with any tools available. Broken water glass to the throat, ceramic plate to the bridge of the nose... My hand crammed down his throat... I don't care if I die as long as I do not die sitting on my laurels. I will not curr out for any one... EVER!
Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If anyone gets close enuff to receive my goods first hand they are close enuff for me to attack.

So you qualify your actions based on distance? I take it the qualification means that if you are long way down the length of the restaurant, you don't start the gun fight from there or charge down the aisle? You let them empty the register and leave?

[hogdogs]

Yes society is US!!! If they get away with the crimes enuff than SOCIETY will be in fear of going out to eat... Matter of fact many here would not go out to eat with out a gun. If enuff folks get mugged walking down the sidewalk at night that society will fear walking around at night. If enuff islamic radicals hi-jack planes and crash them society will fear flying.
I dislike it very much when supposedly sane law abiding citizens minimize the actions of violent criminals. Sounds like a defense attorney.... "My client doen't deserve these penalties as he just meant to scare the people into giving him free money..."
You handle it how you choose, I will handle it how I see fit. Nut if we are in the place together... you better be ready because they may go nuts when I toss a wrench in their plans...
Brent

[David Armstrong]

However I also know that if many of these so called thugs are confronted by a crazy redneck in an instant and violent defense they will show the cowardice they possess.
Just as many will respond with violence. Seems pretty counterproductive. Let's be sebnsible. You have a gun, the other guy has a fork. Fork man starts yelling and charges you with the fork. Are you going to shoot or run??
I will not curr out for any one... EVER!
Sigh. Planning to act in a sensible fashion to maximize the chances of not just you but others in the vicinity is good common sense. That you would consider it curring out says a lot. Even John Wayne knew when to back down!:D

Matter of fact many here would not go out to eat with out a gun.
And yet millions of people manage to do that every day without too many problems.
I dislike it very much when supposedly sane law abiding citizens minimize the actions of violent criminals.
And I dislike it very much when some supposedly sane law abiding citizen decides that they will make things worse and put the life of me and my loved ones in danger for their ego.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Didn't really answer my question, if you were responding to me.

[hogdogs]

Glenn, If I am without a firearm, distance is crucial. Too far away and I will not have the element of surprise I need to affect a strong arm attack on an armed man. if I cannot affect a productive attack i will wait and if they leave then yes they get away. No I won't try to make a running start as it is likely suicide. But if they intend to include me directly in their scheme I will resist with or without a typical, accepted weapon.
brent

[hogdogs]

Fork man starts yelling and charges you with the fork... NOT ME!!! It will be a silent and instant attack. I do not offer warnings or guttural announcements of my intentions... Along with that fork stab I will also be trying to sweep his legs out... I have 4 limbs and will use them all...
The others around me are on their own as I am... Best of luck to them...
Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, that's reasonable - my view is whether the attack would be productive and help out in the situation. That's the crux of the matter for me.

[Hondo11]

David,

You said that robbers rarely injure their victims and used that as your rationale for compliance. Someone pointed out that several dead victims had the same thought process and you spun that to bolster your argument by saying that they, in fact, proved your point as they were an exception to the rule.

I think that's ridiculous. Being an exception to the rule doesn't make you un-dead. That was my point about not waiting to see if you were the lucky 9 out of 10 or the poor bastard who gets killed.

Of course, you can't just run around, blazing away. But if/when the opportunity presents itself (you have the tactical advantage), I believe you should act rather than allow them to control the situation.

Regarding the other comment I addressed ("just because he's brandishing a gun doesn't mean it's a gunfight")...When you take it out of context, no it doesn't make sense. Of course, a gunfight is when they're going "bang". My point was to argue against the "just sit and wait" point of view. If a gunfight is going to break out, then I want to be the guy starting it. Like I said, I want to be getting the FIRST and ONLY shots off.

And no, the "shear aggression" remark wasn't "spouting cliche". And I never said to scream like a banshee and run across the restaurant or engage when you have a tough shot and innocent people likely to be hit. The point is to offer a different perspective.

Compliance and being a willing victim is one side if the coin. Taking the fight to the criminal is another. One common small unit tactic (a single person would be a small unit) when you are the one being ambushed (the robber has a tactical advantage over you) is to immediately charge the ambush. The same principle can apply in some self-defense scenarios. When you are at a disadvantage and behind the reactionary curve, you don't have a lot going for you. Sometimes the only way out is to go full force...when it gets nasty, you get nastier. That's the last thing they typically expect from anyone and believe it or not, badguys freeze up too. That can be to your advantage.

You offer your opinion and I'll offer mine. Personally, I don't think my wife is going to feel any better know that when the criminal dumped me, it was just an exception to the rule.

[buzz_knox]

The correct answer to every one of these kind of questions is, "it depends on the circumstances at the time."

If you condition yourself to sit and watch, you may find yourself fighting said conditioning when things go pear shaped. That delay could kill you.

If you condition yourself to fight, you may find yourself getting into a situation where shooting wasn't necessarily the best chance.

Shooting isn't always the best option but being a good witness might end up with your becoming a headless corpse.

[pax]

Buzz,

Good summary.

The real problem with online discussions like that is that so many people want kindergarten answers to PhD questions, and are rarely content with a thoughtful, "It really depends ..."

pax

[Hondo11]

You asked for them. Here are a few examples after about 11 seconds of Googling.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297027,00.html
Committed a robbery/murder, then stopped to shoot a 7-month old baby, execution style. (Guess the baby wasn't complying)

http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=7768814
4th sentence....killed after surrendering cash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0m4dn0hVRI
Here's a video for you. Guy hands over money, doesn't resist, and gets killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_WrjDsbO4U
Oh gosh, here's another video of a non-resisting store clerk getting killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Bif8JjX0o
Yet another one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d4IL77KzpU
These guys were walking out the door when the one with the gun turns to shoot the non-resisting clerk.

I guess I could find more, but what would be the point? All these people were exceptions to the rule, so that should make them feel better. Oh wait, they can't feel anything. They're dead.

[Hondo11]

And just to be clear, I am not of the opinion that there is only one way to skin the cat. I realize that each situation is unique. I'm just showing the flip side of the coin that some think only has one face.

[buzz_knox]

The real problem with online discussions like that is that so many people want kindergarten answers to PhD questions, and are rarely content with a thoughtful, "It really depends ..."

It's the internet, where everyone is 10 feet tall and an expert in every subject. The old advice about not opening one's mouth and removing all doubt about one's foolishness doesn't apply when one is merely typing.

Not point any fingers at anyone but myself with that last comment, having foolishly remarked on SEAL operations in the "real" SEAL and gotten smacked rather handily and deservedly. That "learned" me real quick about straying outside my lane.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Quick - shut it down on this note of reasonable discussion!

:D

[David Armstrong]

You said that robbers rarely injure their victims and used that as your rationale for compliance.
Whoa. I do not suggest compliance. I suggest a full understanding of the facts and as much knowledge as possible to be used to decide what is the course of action that minimizes your loss of resources. Sometimes that might be compliance, sometimes that might be a full-scale attack, sometimes it might be a bit of deception and trickery, sometimes it might be something else.
I think that's ridiculous.
You may think it is ridiculous, but again, that doesn't change the facts.
But if/when the opportunity presents itself (you have the tactical advantage), I believe you should act rather than allow them to control the situation.
And I believe that choosing to act does not necessarily mean you are in control of the situation, nor does sitting back prepared to respond if needed mean they are in control
If a gunfight is going to break out, then I want to be the guy starting it.
And there is the key. If you do not start it, there probably won't be one at all.
Like I said, I want to be getting the FIRST and ONLY shots off.

I would want that too. However, I would suggest it is rather questionable to plan for a best case scenario given that rarely works out.
Compliance and being a willing victim is one side if the coin.
I'll disagree that compliance is the same as being a willing victim.
Taking the fight to the criminal is another.
And there is yet a third---watchful observance, prepared to act if necessary but not acting until it is necessary.
....and believe it or not, badguys freeze up too. That can be to your advantage.
And believe it or not, sometimes they don't freeze up. Frequently they have a lot more experience at this sort of thing than you do. That is to their advantage. Remember the basic rule--always assume your opponent is just as well-trained and motivated as you are.
Personally, I don't think my wife is going to feel any better know that when the criminal dumped me, it was just an exception to the rule.
And I don't think she will feel much better knowing that the criminal wouldn't have dumped you at all if you hadn't created a problem for him. And my wife would be downright unhappy if I got killed by a stray round from the gunfight you started that wasn't necessary. Getting into a gunfight should be a last resort, not a first choice.
I guess I could find more, but what would be the point?
There wouldn't be one, except that for every one of those where there was a murder there were about 400 where nobody was murdered.

[Wayfarin'Stranger]

There wouldn't be one, except that for every one of those where there was a murder there were about 400 where nobody was murdered.

Okay. I think the point of the question for the original scenario was 'what would you do'.

We're delving into statistics, criminal mind reading, and debating how the wife would feel if you got shot when it could have been avoided.

Concerning the quote above....I'm not much of a numbers man, but what I do know is that there are at least 400 robberies being commited anywhere at one time. I'm not to thrilled about the idea of hoping I'm not that one guy that the criminal will shoot for the fun of it, even after my full compliance.

I'm even going to answer the OP's question again.
When faced with armed robbers going person to person in a resteraunt demanding money with the threat of violence for non-compliance, I will shoot them dead. I don't feel lucky enough to play the odd's.


Maybe this should have been a 'voting pole only' thread so there's no opportunity for flaming.

[Hondo11]

Nevermind. We're just talking in circles. I've already said that I don't think there is ONE solution that applies to EVERY situation. My solution isn't to start slinging rounds and laying hate at the drop of a hat. I just don't agree with sitting there and letting the criminal decide the when, where, and how.

[JohnKSa]

John, I've done that before in these discussions. If you didn't check them then, why should I dig them back up now for you not to check again?If I've ever been involved in a discussion with you where you provided a cite/link to the statistics you described I don't recall it. And although I spend a good deal of time on TFL, I still don't have time to read everything that's posted.

A search of your posts including the word "statistics" didn't turn up anything relevant. The closest thing I could find was a mention of the NCVS in a post that you made a year ago in a thread that I didn't participate in. There was no link to any data nor any specific reference to the particular data on the NCVS you were referring to.

So, let me try this again. Please provide a link to the controlled statistics you mentioned earlier. Specifically, these would be the statistics that you said demonstrated that Kleck's study results are dangerously misleading.

[Socrates]

The problem with such situations is you are reacting, rather then planning, using tactics, and training, and proactively going after the threat, or, actively retreating, gaining a tactical advantage, cover, or barrier in the situation.

I firmly believe that action that does not fit the bad guys expectation can throw them off their plan, and, make them terminate their endeavor early. The point of tactics and training is to throw the bad guys out of their comfort zone, and playing on their fear, forcing them to flee.

I believe that bad guys are prone to reacting to stimulus in a manner for self-preservation, when the situation doesn't work out the way they plan. In other words, it's kind of like the mouse throwing the cat off it's timing, and attacking it while it's off balance...

Much as I hate to use the example: There is a video someone linked to in a discussion about gang members now being military trained. One gang member, outside a convience store, was out to shoot police. By actively attacking, not retreating, he threw the police off their game, as he had been taught by the Marines, or armed forces. I believe similar tactics can be used in such situations to stop the bad guys. I for one, do not really like putting my life at the mercy of an armed robber, just because my active defense of my life MIGHT put others at risk...

[DWFan]

David Armstrong.....
Quote:
You said that robbers rarely injure their victims and used that as your rationale for compliance.
Your response:
Whoa. I do not suggest compliance. I suggest a full understanding of the facts and as much knowledge as possible to be used to decide what is the course of action that minimizes your loss of resources. Sometimes that might be compliance, sometimes that might be a full-scale attack, sometimes it might be a bit of deception and trickery, sometimes it might be something else.

Double talk. "Whoa. I do not suggest compliance" and "Sometimes that might be compliance" directly contradict each other.

Quote:
Like I said, I want to be getting the FIRST and ONLY shots off.
Your response:
I would want that too. However, I would suggest it is rather questionable to plan for a best case scenario given that rarely works out.

Isn't the "best case scenario" what you propose with your "I suggest a full understanding of the facts and as much knowledge as possible to be used to decide what is the course of action that minimizes your loss of resources."? Planning is always questionable when your actions depend completely on the anticipated actions of a total stranger; especially in a stressful situation. There is such a thing as over-thinking a situation before taking action. You would wait until they escalate to take action? What if the first person they shoot is you? If it is someone else, do you accept partial responsibility for their death if you have the means to prevent it?

Quote:
The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.
Your response:
Then you have obviously missed the point, as nowhere do I say one should trust the criminal for much of anything.

Being in compliance with someone IS putting your trust in them, however reluctantly it's done. Even if that compliance is being done while covertly trying to get a tactical advantage before taking action, it is still compliance. It is still trusting the criminal not to shoot so long as you appear to follow instruction. In the story I provided the link to, it was surmissed by the police that the reason the victims willingly walked into the freezer was that they "trusted" that Stafford was only going to lock them up so a clean getaway could be made. They wound up being killed execution-style.

Quote:
But if/when the opportunity presents itself (you have the tactical advantage), I believe you should act rather than allow them to control the situation.
Your response:
And I believe that choosing to act does not necessarily mean you are in control of the situation, nor does sitting back prepared to respond if needed mean they are in control.

By definition, if someone is directing the situation and all others involved are following that direction without resistance, they are in control.

Quote:
If a gunfight is going to break out, then I want to be the guy starting it.
Your response:
And there is the key. If you do not start it, there probably won't be one at all.

The operative word here is "probably". Is it enough of a probability to stake your life, and the lives of others, on? Is it enough to be able to claim to survivors and the police, if someone is injured or killed, that you didn't take action because you were playing the odds? By inaction you are placing your trust in the bet that this is not the "one in 400" situation that will result in your, and others, deaths. To put it in perspective, the 1 in 400 odds you quote may sound like a good thing but in reality they are not far from the odds of having a full house in hand of poker.

Quote:
You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there.
Your response:
Again we see a basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works. If you are having success without killing, why change your M.O. to make it harder/worse on you?

Why indeed? Why commit an armed robbery to begin with? Thieves do not escalate their actions? I'm fairly sure most robbers don't START with armed robbery, but with shop lifting, petty theft and possibly breaking and entering before "graduating" to the higher level of armed robbery and robbery/homicide.
And just where on that chain of escalation are the individuals holding you at gunpoint? What ability gives you the insight to determine what their motives are? As far as my "basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works", is it this same insight that gives you the ability to know MY level of knowledge or personal experience?

[Socrates]

What's the stat on guys in the joint being high, or drunk when they commit their crime? 85-95%? I'm sorry, but, if I can at all help it, I'm going to rely on the fact that I'm sober, and, that my shooting ability will exceed that of a drunk robber. If the best shot in a gun battle usually, or always wins, I'll take that bet, and, bet on the high statistic of substance abuse to work in my favor...

[JohnKSa]

What's the stat on guys in the joint being high, or drunk when they commit their crime? 85-95%?I've never seen that statistic but I agree that such information would be relevant, particularly in attempting to assess whether or not the criminal could be expected to behave rationally. Could you provide a link?

[Socrates]

Don't have a link on that one, just a year in the DA's office, and an educated guess. LEO's might be able to provide better evidence, since they are the arresting officers...

[alloy]

hopefully i wouldnt be first, i guess thats a good reason not to sit at the counter by the register any more. they can have my wallet and watch, but since i have the gun according to the original question...i cant see a good way to react to any further demands for property because of the gun. i dont feel i can comply with him, because i dont know how that is going to fly. anything beyond the freely given watch and wallet would be a personal threat, i would hope i was prepared for that and had already had time to have the gun under the table.

evidently...carrying a gun into waffle house, might cause the necessity for using the gun...in yet another brain twisting what-if chicken/egg scenario.

i dont even like waffles...

[David Armstrong]

Specifically, these would be the statistics that you said demonstrated that Kleck's study results are dangerously misleading.

This is why I hate to even play this game, John. NOWHERE did I say anything about Kleck's study results being dangerously misleading. Therefore it will be pretty hard to provide a link to stats that say something that I never said. Kleck's work is not misleading, it is not dangerous, it needs to be understood. Just like the "43 times more dangerous" stat. One needs to understand the context in order to understand the results. For example, the victimization data used is based on a size of less than 10 sample cases. Given other data, it is fair to assume that of that 10, about 5 helped the situation (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002 Statistical Tables). One shouldn't need any stats to support the idea that using a gun against an unarmed opponent is likely to give better results than using a gun against an opponent who also has a gun.

But here, a very specific cite you can go look up, read the info, and so on. "At the individual level, armed resistance with a gun can reduce the likelihood that a crime is completed but might increase the victim's chance of becoming injured." CRIME CONTROL IN AMERICA (2ed) by John L. Worrall, page 258.

[David Armstrong]

Double talk. "Whoa. I do not suggest compliance" and "Sometimes that might be compliance" directly contradict each other.
Nonsense. Suggesting that one should try to understand a situation, and with that understanding choose among a number of alternatives, in no way is suggesting a particular course of action.
Isn't the "best case scenario" what you propose with your "I suggest a full understanding of the facts and as much knowledge as possible to be used to decide what is the course of action that minimizes your loss of resources."?
I wouild suggest that is quite a bit different than thinking that not only am I going to be able to get the first shot off in a gunfight, but also that I will be such a fantastic dealer of death that all my shots will go exactly where I want them, the BGs will be unable to react.respond, etc.
You would wait until they escalate to take action?
Yes. Given that the huge number of robberies end without anybody being hurt, I see no reason to turn a simple robbery into a gunfight without additional indicators.
Being in compliance with someone IS putting your trust in them, however reluctantly it's done.
Again, nonsense. You keep taking terms that mean different things and trying to say they are the same. Compliance is not trust.
By definition, if someone is directing the situation and all others involved are following that direction without resistance, they are in control.
Sorry, but that is just silly. If people choose to follow directions based on their own self-interest it doesn't mean the other person is in control, it means the people are choosing to maximize their own interests. If the BG asks me for my billfold and I give it to him, knowing that I could probably kill him if I decided to do so, I'm following directions but he is not in control.
The operative word here is "probably". Is it enough of a probability to stake your life, and the lives of others, on?
Yes, it is. 400 to 1 is pretty good odds. They are quite a bit better than the odds of getting through a gunfight without injury, I would suggest. And again, you always have the option of escalating your response if needed. Not starting a gunfight is very different from not fighting at all.
To put it in perspective, the 1 in 400 odds you quote may sound like a good thing but in reality they are not far from the odds of having a full house in hand of poker.
To keep it in perspective, will you bet me $500 a hand, for 10 hands of poker, that you will draw a full house?
Why commit an armed robbery to begin with?
Generally to get money, and as long as that goal is met the criminal goes on about his business. When that goal is blocked they resort to other tactics.
Thieves do not escalate their actions?
Not without reason. As long as a tactic is working they tend to stay with that tactic.
And just where on that chain of escalation are the individuals holding you at gunpoint?
Depends. Are they holding you at gunpoint as a means of intimidation to obtain compliance? Or are they indicating there is some other motive?
As far as my "basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works", is it this same insight that gives you the ability to know MY level of knowledge or personal experience?
I do not need to know your level of knowledge or personal experience to make a comment based on what you have posted.

I'm going to quote Scattergun Bob from another thread, because it seems so appropriate:
"Preemptive strikes, by white knights saving the day seem a correct line of action. In reality they are folly and very seldom are the correct action."
Doesn't mean they are never correct, doesn't mean you should never use them, but they seldom are the correct action.

[buzz_knox]

Statistically, there is no reason to carry a gun as the odds of getting attacked on the street is fairly low.

Statistically, there is no reason to own ammunition, as the odds of having to actually shoot someone are even lower than

Statistically, those who live their lives based on statistics are the ones that Mr. Murphy loves playing with the most. (The last can't be verified stastically but only anecdotally).

[David Armstrong]

Statistically, those who live their lives based on statistics are the ones that Mr. Murphy loves playing with the most.
Actually, most of us live our lives based on statistics. Few realize how much of that goes on, and sadly many of us fail to get the information that would allow us to most accurately determine what the stats are and how to use them.

[tirvin73]

You may want to think about WHERE you WOULD want to sit in any situation. Can you see the door? Can you tell where cover is? Is that cover or concealment? Are there any other ways in or out? What should family members do in a situation like this. These are things you may want to think about before something happens. Remember where these places are when you return. (Provided the services are good!?)

If you follow The Guru and his principals, Condition Orange is not a state you "walk around in". Orange is an identified threat that may move you to Red. Red is the state of mind that you now may have to GO.If the decision to GO is made,any other thoughts from that point on should fall back on your training.

Remember,this is the age of the "common man" or better still, the age of the "wimps"

[hogdogs]

My wife thinks it strange that I actually look to see if the restaurant tables are on a base or mounted to the wall. I prefer bases as I can overturn the table for either cover or a startling affect.
Those mounted tables serve no purpose other than allowing me to shovel grub into my mouth with both hands!
Every little detail is important and should be observed before needed and value vs. risk weighed out... A concealed handgun is but one tool in the war against thug/terrorists. I never have a handgun on me these days but i am always possessing lethal weapons with more devices ready to be put into action all around me.
Brent

[buzz_knox]

Actually, most of us live our lives based on statistics. Few realize how much of that goes on, and sadly many of us fail to get the information that would allow us to most accurately determine what the stats are and how to use them.

Some do. The smart ones plan for the unexpected so if the statistics go sideways, they have a plan and the tools for dealing with it.

The problem is that most people who excessively cite to statistics cause, intentionally or intentionally, complacency and "it won't happen to me" in others. Crap always happens to the other guy, and people forget that when two or more people are involved in a conversation, the "other guy" might very well be involved in said conversation.

As someone who's had 1 in a million things happen to me or those close to me, I fully expect that the statistical average applies to those other than me, and I plan accordingly. When things go wrong, I'm usually prepared. When things go right, I'm always happily surprised.

[Hondo11]

Quote From Alloy:

hopefully i wouldnt be first, i guess thats a good reason not to sit at the counter by the register any more. they can have my wallet and watch, but since i have the gun according to the original question...i cant see a good way to react to any further demands for property because of the gun. i dont feel i can comply with him, because i dont know how that is going to fly. anything beyond the freely given watch and wallet would be a personal threat, i would hope i was prepared for that and had already had time to have the gun under the table.

evidently...carrying a gun into waffle house, might cause the necessity for using the gun...in yet another brain twisting what-if chicken/egg scenario.

The brain twisting part is trying to understand the logic behind your thought process. Someone pointing a gun at you and demanding your wallet and watch is not a personal threat? The fact that he is holding the gun is an implied intent to use it to force you to comply (or use it if you don't comply...however you want to word it.) He's saying without saying, "Give me the wallet and the watch or I'll shoot you with this gun in my hand, which I have pointed at your face." Otherwise, he wouldn't be using a gun. He'd just walk in and say, "Give me your wallet and watch", and then leave if you didn't comply.

Again, at what point do you decide that you can now defend yourself? AFTER he's already shot you?

[David Armstrong]

Some do.
No. we all do, to some extent or another. Most just fail to realize how much of it goes on.
The smart ones plan for the unexpected so if the statistics go sideways, they have a plan and the tools for dealing with it.
The smart ones understand the odds so they can determine what is worth planning for and what isn't.
The problem is that most people who excessively cite to statistics cause, intentionally or intentionally, complacency and "it won't happen to me" in others.
So we should let people base decisions on bad information?? I realize there are some folks out there that think Rambo is a training film, but most of us know better. I think Glenn has pointed out a few times that there is something inherent in shooters and gunowners that causes them to believe lack of information is better than having information.
....fully expect that the statistical average applies to those other than me, and I plan accordingly.
And you are using statistics when you make that plan.:)

[David Armstrong]

Again, at what point do you decide that you can now defend yourself? AFTER he's already shot you?
There is a whole lot of territory between "2 guys with guns rob waffle house" and "they have shot you." There is no point at which you decide. There are an infinite number of points, based on an amazingly large number of factors. And it is not so much an issue of if you CAN defend yourself, it is more SHOULD you defend yourself and HOW you will defend yourself.

[alloy]

"Someone pointing a gun at you and demanding your wallet and watch is not a personal threat?"

well hondo11, this is the i-net...so i dont know if he points the gun at me or just says everyone throw your stuff in the sack while someone else is waiving a gun around from the front door... 20 feet away with 20 folks in between. at this point, i also dont really know if my two daughters are sitting across the booth from me or beside me, and i dont know if i brought the derringer or a .45 that day. lot of ifs. but chances are...i would comply and until i see something to make me think the situation is escalating. regardless..the gun would be under the table and out. not starting a free-for-all in waffle house with a .32 if the robbers seem composed. people with years of tactical or real life experience no doubt would act differently....but reading the first post that started this interesting thread...."no one was injured".

so i quit sitting at the counters today. thats why im here. because a small tip or realization, might increase my odds tenfold when it sticks. shooting the skull-cap off an armed robber with his arm around a hostage might not be my level of comfort....but i only got ayoobs front sight picture yesterday and coopers states two days ago. next week im rambo.

[tirvin73]

how you will defend yourself...... until there is no longer a threat.

should you defend yourself......... two armed men robbing patrons... signs point to "yes"


can you defend yourself......... PRACTICE! PRACTICE! PRACTICE! You can't solve a problem if you don't know there is one.

Just because you own a firearm does not mean you are safe, you can practice on your own but there are a lot of people willing to teach. Learn.

[Ohio Rusty]

To answer Zippy's question back about page 3 of the thread .... If they look into my fake wallet, notice the bills aren't real and focus their attention on me, then so much the better. I would rather them focus on me giving me a better opportunity to shoot if I would have to. That might put bystanders in less harms way.
When ever I go into places to shop, get gas, eat, I'm always running scenario's in my head. I case the place and notice what doors are near me for escape purposes (including smoke and fire issues), what kind of cover is available if I have to cover and fire from a static position, etc. If there is a robbery far across the room at the cash register, I certainly wouldn't charge across the room to confront the robber. If the robber started going table to table, that is a different scenario all together. I guess I really don't consider myself 'in danger' until the threat comes close to me. At that point the scenario changes, and my reaction to the threat changes also.
The one scenario that I would definitely take action would be having my wife or grandson with me. I would not want to have either of them taken hostage and me not do anything. They might wind up shot or dead, and I would have a hard time forgiving myself. When they are with me, I'm less apt to just hand over the money, and more apt to rapidly, in successive shots, hand over the copper jacketed lead. Different environments produce different scenarios on what I would/will do. It's not my responsibility to protect all the other shoppers, donut eaters or the money and goods owned by the store during the commision of a theft or robbery. That is the responsibility of a hired security officer or commissioned peace officer.
It *IS* my responsibility to protect my family, and that may require escalation of force. That in my mind is justifiable. I'm prepared at a moments notice to do that for my family. Different scenario's will produce different results and/or actions from me. And if I 'accidently' have my gun in an eatery or store that doesn't allow me to have a gun and something happens..... well ..... at least I'm the one still alive to pay the trespassing fine. That is Ok with me.
Ohio Rusty ><>

[JohnKSa]

"At the individual level, armed resistance with a gun can reduce the likelihood that a crime is completed but might increase the victim's chance of becoming injured."This does not address the issue. It CAN reduce, it MIGHT increase? That's not what you said, and if that HAD been what you said I would never have responded at all because that statement is so subjective and so lacking in objective metric as to be essentially meaningless.This is why I hate to even play this game, John. NOWHERE did I say anything about Kleck's study results being dangerously misleading. Therefore it will be pretty hard to provide a link to stats that say something that I never said. Kleck's work is not misleading, it is not dangerous, it needs to be understood.This is double-talk. You know very well what I'm referring to and I am equally well aware of what you said. You stated that: That has become one of those horribly mis-leading facts, sort of like the antis "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family member" thing. Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher. I want to know how much higher the "injury rates seem to go" and also how much higher the "severity of the injuries goes".

We're talking about information that would be used in making life & death decisions here. If you have the information provide it.

[Socrates]

Last time I checked the FBI stats for San Francisco, I had a one in 17 chance, every year, of being the victim of a violent crime. I don't think those are good odds. Most major cities are in about that range and, again, I don't think those are good odds. I'm sure my trips to Oakland, Richmond, Pitt Kali, and others in the area do NOT improve my odds.

I've been mugged once for being wrong place wrong time, and, unarmed. I'd like that not to happen again...

[David Armstrong]

This does not address the issue. It CAN reduce, it MIGHT increase?
Yes. It can, it might. That is the language of professional researchers in soft sciences. Again, that is why I hate to even get into these sorts of things and usually tell folks to go do their own research. If the numbers say that it will reduce injury 99 times out of 100, it is referred to as CAN reduce.
That's not what you said,
Not exactly, but it is pretty darned close: "When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher...." isn't that much different from "can go higher" or "might go higher".
This is double-talk. You know very well what I'm referring to and I am equally well aware of what you said. You stated that:
I stated one thing. You then said that I stated something else entirely. Then you say that I'm engaging in double talk. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you want to discuss what I have said, I'll be glad to discuss it. If you want me to discuss things that you claim I said but I did not say, I will point out that I did not say them.
I want to know how much higher the "injury rates seem to go" and also how much higher the "severity of the injuries goes".
It doesn't work that way. Different studies lead to different finding, various severity levels, and so on. That is why we discuss propensities and likelihoods. We are talking social science research, not mathematics. If you want to decide something based on the research, please, feel free to examine it. Feel free to take research methodology classes and survey design courses. But you asked for an item, I gave it to you, and now you want to argue about it. If you don't like my info, if you don't like the findings, please go look this stuff up for yourself.

[Keltyke]

or just says everyone throw your stuff in the sack while someone else is waiving a gun around from the front door... 20 feet away with 20 folks in between.

My CWP Instructor, a retired police force veteran with over 25 years of service, told us: "If someone pulls or points a gun, you MUST assume they intend to use it."

The penalty for guessing wrong is too great.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So what was his suggestion about how to react when a gun was pointed at you?

Move and draw - I've 'shot' folks who tried to do that in FOF when I was the BG. I've also seen folks draw against a gun pointed at them and shoot the BG. I've been in ones where everyone got shot.

However, I've also complied in a FOF robbery and was 'shot' - statements by 'experts' do not guarantee anything.

It all comes down to thinking. What action minimizes your harm? There's no one answer - it is situational. I wouldn't make the decision based on some internet outrage and philosophy. I decide on what makes less holes and oozing out of Glenn.

[David Armstrong]

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
John, I've done that before in these discussions. If you didn't check them then, why should I dig them back up now for you not to check again?

If I've ever been involved in a discussion with you where you provided a cite/link to the statistics you described I don't recall it.
My apologies to John on this. I was sure we had been through that here on this forum, but I had confused it with another John at another forum. Mea Culpa.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I am a regular listener of Tom Gresham's Guntalk Radio. He does a show called Personal Defense TV. I really like the show and watch it a lot. On one of his latest radio segments he speaks of some force on force training he did for one of his PDTV shows and told us how many times he was "killed" while in these types of scenarios. I think one was a conveinience store holdup and another was a disgruntled employee and Tom was trying to "save" the boss from being shot. He said on his show that he got killed almost EVERY time he tried to intervene. He lived when he ran. Maybe some of you heard his show. It will be on PDTV and I hope I can get it as I don't get the channel he moved to. Maybe it is on his web site guntalk.tv and I will enroll there.

Bottomline, a guy could really get killed doing this and the only advantage IMHO we gun owners would have on the bad guy was surprise. If he didn't know we were armed and he got to looking at something else then maybe if it was up close and personal. But I don't know? I am glad I can carry but I can sure still get killed and it may be my day to go. At least I would have a chance with a gun and none without it.

The OP scenario is a bit too open ended to tell for sure.

[threegun]

I have never been a fan of playing the odds (my luck is not good) especially if being wrong could mean being dead. An obvious exception is already having a gun pointed at me.

I would rather rely on my abilities than the bad guys decision. If I wait until escalation from the bad guy I might not have the opportunity and I certainly won't have the surprise.

[alloy]

"My CWP Instructor, a retired police force veteran with over 25 years of service, told us: "If someone pulls or points a gun, you MUST assume they intend to use it."
The penalty for guessing wrong is too great.
Keltyke

in a smaller situation...on the street or as a shopowner behind my counter, or in my house...i am OK with that. i am also more prepared for that, especially at home or at the shop.
i can understand the same premise about the robber's intent in this particular Waffle incident or similar.

but my actions are hopefully gonna be somewhat different and maybe more measured, depending on the circumstances...for a myriad of reasons, unless perhaps i am the first one the gun is drawn and pointed at. currently thinking more along the lines of Tennessee Gentleman's post. at least for an on-line situation with so many details open.

[JohnKSa]

If the numbers say that it will reduce injury 99 times out of 100, it is referred to as CAN reduce. Unfortunately if the numbers say that it will reduce injury 1 time out of 10,000 it is STILL referred to as "CAN reduce".

That is why I keep asking for the data so we can see exactly what it says as opposed to trying to analyze someone's vaguely worded characterization of the data.It doesn't work that way. Different studies lead to different finding, various severity levels, and so on. That is why we discuss propensities and likelihoods. We are talking social science research, not mathematics.If you can't provide the numbers, at least provide the name of the study that contains the numbers (or objectively quantified results, if there are no numbers--though I find that possibility quite unlikely).

Regarding your comment about different studies; to be clear, nothing I've said should be construed to restrict you to providing the results of only a single study. If you know of "different studies" that support your argument then provide them all. I emphasize the word "studies" to make it clear that I'm interested in the study itself, not in a subjectively worded one sentence summary of the study.If you want to discuss what I have said, I'll be glad to discuss it.Ok, let's try this again. You stated that: That has become one of those horribly mis-leading facts, sort of like the antis "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family member" thing. Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher. Let's see the study results you're referring to that are controlled for the factor of whether or not the BG is armed.

Posting that I should "go look them up" is not reasonable, in fact it is an example of the logical fallacy called the Burden of Proof Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). You brought up this alleged study saying it supported your argument that the fact I quoted based on Kleck's study was "horribly misleading". That means that the burden of proof (as to the existence of the study, its contents and its support of your argument) is on you.

[David Armstrong]

That is why I keep asking for the data so we can see exactly what it says as opposed to trying to analyze someone's vaguely worded characterization of the data.
There is no single source of data. There are dozens of sources of data, all of which measure different things at different times. Figuring out how they all work together and what trends they indicate is the issue.
If you know of "different studies" that support your argument then provide them all.
If you disagree with what I have said, please feel free to provide whatever evidence you think you need to support your disagreement. If you disagree with the conclusions I have posted, feel free to offer conclusions of your own. But if we are going to play the "please cite your sources" game here I'll play, provided it applies equally to everybody else and all the time. Failing in that, I feel no need to conduct research on behalf of another party.
Posting that I should "go look them up" is not reasonable
From your point, perhaps so. From my point, it is quite reasonable. Again, if we are going to hold everybody to the same standard of proof, I'll be glad to play. But unless we all play by the same rules I see no reason for me to do something that others do not have to do.
You brought up this alleged study saying it supported your argument that the fact I quoted based on Kleck's study was "horribly misleading".
No. I pointed out your statement, while factually correct, was horribly misleading, much like the "43 times" quote used by the antis. Then in another post I showed why I felt the statement was misleading, using the 2002 data to identify some of the problems with it. The studies (note that it is plural) showing higher rates and severity of injury are not in conflict with Kleck's study, they are a refinement of the information relating to a smaller subset. Thus while one bit of research looks at guns used in defense against ALL robbers, the other study looks at guns used in defense against robbers armed with guns. Then I give you a citation to support that statement I made, and you reject it out of hand because it doesn't meet your standards of specificity, in spite of the fact that it uses the language that is considered appropriate by the professionals in the field.
That means that the burden of proof (as to the existence of the study, its contents and its support of your argument) is on you.
Actually, if you want to use formal rules regarding burden of proof, I have provided a sourced citation from a qualified person in the field in support of what I have said, thus meeting my burden of proof. It is now incumbent upon you to either show why the source is not to be believed or provide a source of your own with equal or better qualifications in opposition.

[Night Watch]

:rolleyes: Me? I'd just sit there, do my level best to ignore them, avoid eye contact, and continue eating those delicious white flour pancakes! As long as the BG's don't start frisking and robbing individual customers I wouldn't so much as blink an eye.

Now, if they decide to start frisking the customers I've got a serious problem on my hands - One that I'm not going to be able to hide! Then, it would be a, 'crap shoot' for me to accurately guesstimate whether or not they're going to violently respond when they discover the, 'gun store' I'm carrying underneath my cover garment.

I try to live by the golden rule: I wouldn't want some well-meaning citizen to heroically open up in the middle of a small confined room while me and mine were there; consequently, I prefer to show the same respect for life and reluctance to start a gunfight in front of everyone else.

(I'm positive I'd be very angry at someone who took it upon himself to kick off a heroic gunfight right in front of me - Especially if it were for something as just plain stupid as money or property.) :mad:

[JohnKSa]

If you disagree with what I have said, please feel free to provide whatever evidence you think you need to support your disagreement. David, I'm not the one disagreeing. I am still asking you to provide supporting evidence for your disagreement with my original comment.

If you remember how this started--I made a comment based on Kleck's data. You disagreed (said it was "horribly misleading") and implied that you were basing your statement on supporting data that was controlled for the factor of whether the BG was armed or not.

Now you're trying to claim that my asking you to reveal that data is disagreement on my part. That is absolutely incorrect. We're still dealing with your refusal to provide any reasonable supporting evidence to corroborate your initial disagreement with my comment.

To this point you have refused to provide any supporting evidence. The quote you provided** does not support your original contention in any way, shape, or form because it makes NO attempt to differentiate between the case when the attacker is armed and when he is not--the entire point of your original comment.

** "At the individual level, armed resistance with a gun can reduce the likelihood that a crime is completed but might increase the victim's chance of becoming injured." CRIME CONTROL IN AMERICA (2ed) by John L. Worrall, page 258."

[hogdogs]

Night watch, I respect your views. But to some of us the presence of a bad person "IN MY SPACE" trying to intimidate me and mine into giving up our belongings with the possibility of violence even if we comply is more than I will accept. If a bum on the street politely asked for my cash I would turn him down as I have no extra to spare so why comply with someone trying to force me into it?
Like I said If an armed person approaches my table I am going ape crap on him with what ever I have. If some one so much as trys to snatch a piece of my pancakes off my plate they will be met with the sharp end of my fork! Ask my kids... I don't give up what is mine easily... And honor is as much a reason to fight as anything.
I am not a gun toter currently and would never shoot someone for wanting my goods but if they try to use force I have all legal rights to assume severe bodily harm is intended and thus will retaliate... I have not won every scrap I have been in but have in the vast majority and some were against well armed individuals...
Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Like I said If an armed person approaches my table I am going ape crap on him with what ever I have.

So if a person armed with a sawed off shot gun walked up to your table and stood 6 feet away and said "Throw your wallet to my partner" - you will jump up with your fork?

[Scattergun Bob]

Glenn,

Is It A BIG fork?:)

Please forgive my foolish attempt at humor.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[hogdogs]

Single shot or pump? No at that distance I will just tell him in more colorful language to go fly a kite in hopes he gets stupid and approaches... I do hope another patron takes this opportunity to take the shotgun toter out!
Brent

[David Armstrong]

I am still asking you to provide supporting evidence for your disagreement with my original comment.
Did that. You may not like it, you may disagree with it, but that was done.
You disagreed (said it was "horribly misleading") and implied that you were basing your statement on supporting data that was controlled for the factor of whether the BG was armed or not.
Not quite right. You seem to be co-mingling two things. One was that the data is misleading because of what the data is. The other is that there is other data that provides some evidence of a factor that is not addressed in the Kleck article.
Now you're trying to claim that my asking you to reveal that data is disagreement on my part. That is absolutely incorrect.
Nope. I'm saying if you disagree with what I have said about the findings of some of the research in the field please feel free to provide whatever you feel supports that disagreement. If you don't disagree there is no need for either of us to argue the point, IMO.
To this point you have refused to provide any supporting evidence.
Evidence has been provided. There was an explanation, with data provided, that showed why the Kleck finding as being used was questionable. There was a citation from an expert in the filed supporting the idea that ther can be increased injury when defending. You might not like that support, but let's not deny that it is there and was provided.
The quote you provided** does not support your original contention in any way, shape, or form because it makes NO attempt to differentiate between the case when the attacker is armed and when he is not
It supports the contention that fighting back with a gun can result in a greater chance of injuries than not fighting back.
the entire point of your original comment.
There are two points. One, the Kleck statement is misleading. I have discussed why it is misleading, even though factually correct. Second, using a gun to defend yourself might result in greater injury.
Out of curiosity, John, did you read the Worrall book? If not, why why this demand for chapter and verse citations?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So Hogdogs - you preach the absolute and then hedge your bets? :D

If he doesn't approach, do you throw the wallet? If you don't said BG may shoot to gain compliance for the others.

BTW, in a Florida incident - two geezers shot a shotgun carrying BG with a 22Mag NAA Mini and a 22 Mag Derringer. Said BG took the rounds in the belly and fled.

They didn't stick a fork in him or frisbee their early bird special at him in a whirling boneless chicken breast of death.

[pax]

Glenn ~

Got a link to that story? Gotta get into my files ... :)

pax

[hogdogs]

No I do not comply... if it is a single shot I hope I soaked up his only shell...
I refuse to comply with thugs demands (except gubmint thugs) The only thing in my wallet is too valuable to give up... My ID and social security card are not to be given up.
Yes sir I do hedge my bets But I will not waiver on my convictions and stand by the absolute.
Brent

[Night Watch]

Night Watch, I respect your views. But to some of us the presence of a bad person "IN MY SPACE" trying to intimidate me and mine into giving up our belongings with the possibility of violence even if we comply is more than I will accept. If a bum on the street politely asked for my cash I would turn him down as I have no extra to spare so why comply with someone trying to force me into it?

:rolleyes: Well, then, you’re just quicker to resort to violence or to kill than I am. When it comes to taking human life, ‘in my space’ is a meaningless expression to me. Will I voluntarily give up my personal belongings? If it means placing the lives of innocents at risk then, yes, I’m willing to let property go.

As another indication of the differences between our respective viewpoints: Around holiday time I have given money to homeless people. Sometimes it’s been money I needed for myself; I just thought that they might need it more.

Like I said If an armed person approaches my table I am going ape crap on him with whatever (Ed.) I have. If someone (Ed.) so much as tries (Ed.) to snatch a piece of my pancakes off my plate they will be met with the sharp end of my fork! Ask my kids ... I don't give up what is mine easily... And honor is as much a reason to fight as anything.

Well, first of all, there ain't a lot of, 'honor' associated with anything as proletarian as THE INTERNET! Sooner or later, someone is going to disagree, start playing dirty with you, and try to, 'steal your pancakes'! (Like so many other things in life, it takes a thick skin to come on here everyday, and being proud will often just get you into a larger argument!) ;)

In this instance, though, I believe I said pretty much the same thing as you have just stated. In a robbery of this sort, if the perpetrator doesn’t start shooting or doesn't personally confront me, then, I will NOT take action.

The problem I have with personal confrontation is that it’s difficult for me to reach for my wallet without revealing some sort of, ‘tell’ that I’m heavily armed. I might be able to do it; or, I might not. This forces me to make a decision about whomever might be confronting me. You ALWAYS have to remember Rule #4, ‘Mark your target AND what is beyond.’

My suggestion would be for you to, at least, be aware of whichever circumstance might be the lesser of two evils - to draw and fire, or not to draw and fire?

I am not a gun totter (Ed.) currently and would never shoot someone for wanting my goods but if they try to use force I have all legal rights to assume severe bodily harm is intended and thus will retaliate ... I have not won every scrap I have been in but have in the vast majority and some were against well armed individuals ...

I am a, ‘gun totter’. Still, because I’ve seen more ugly realities in this life than I would have otherwise cared to, I remain a very reluctant, ‘fast gun’. The extraordinary skill level is certainly there; however, someone would have to really push me before I’d make a conscious decision to use it!

There’s one other thing you should be aware of before you become too proud, or get too bloodthirsty in a situation like this: Even if you take your armed assailant out clean, what happens when the other members of his street gang are confronted with a severe loss of face, and have to publicly bury a fallen associate because of what you did? Think you might lose a few nights’ sleep over something like that? ;)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Don't have the URL anymore. But here you go.

Allison Thompson, Robber Gets Outgunned on Westside," Florida Times-Union
( Jacksonville, FL),September 24, 1997, p. B1.

Wednesday, September 24, 1997

Story last updated at 11:10 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 1997
Robber gets outgunned on Westside


By Allison Thompson
Times-Union staff writer

The shotgun-wielding man who burst into a crowded Jacksonville restaurant Monday night probably wasn't expecting Oscar Moore, but Moore had been waiting for him for years.

Moore, 69, of the Normandy area, said he goes over potential crime scenarios in his head and has been planning for something like the robbery he found himself in the middle of Monday. He said he carries a gun everywhere he goes unless it's illegal.

Yesterday, he said he had only one regret about the shooting - the gun he used.

''That gun I didn't trust to try to go for a head shot,'' said Moore, who shot the would-be robber in the midsection with a .22-caliber Magnum revolver. ''If I'd had another gun with me, I'd have gone for a head shotand taken care of it from here to eternity.''

As more than 30 diners sat in Sam's St. Johns Seafood at 4453 Blanding Blvd. about 7:20 p.m., a masked man entered the eatery and ordered everyone to the floor, said co-owner Sam Bajalia. The man grabbed waitress Amy Norton from where she and another waitress were huddled on the floor and tried to get her to open the cash register.

At that point, Moore stood up and shot him. Another diner, 81-year-old Robert Guerry of Birmingham, Ala., pulled out a .22-caliber derringer and fired at the man as he ran out of the restaurant. At least one shot hit the fleeing robber.

Seventeen-year-old Dervonne Marquise Moore of the 900 block of Frost Drive East arrived at St. Vincent's Medical Center later Monday night with a gunshot wound and was charged with armed robbery. Moore, who police said isn't related to Oscar Moore, underwent surgery and was in fair and stable condition yesterday.

Though it's been about five years since the restaurant was robbed, manager Carl Rix said he wasn't surprised when gunfire erupted.

Margaret Moore said she wasn't surprised either when her husband, who she said shoots pistols competitively, pulled out his gun.

''He goes prepared most places that he goes,'' she said.

She has had premonitions for the past several months that something was going to happen, Oscar Moore said.

Margaret Moore called her husband a hero, a sentiment others at the restaurant shared.

''I'm glad they [Moore and Guerry] were here because if that girl couldn't open the register, and he didn't get no money, he might have started shooting,'' Bajalia said.

Edward Hurst, 61, was having dinner with his brother and sister-in-law when the shooting began.

''I went over and thanked the one I thought hit him,'' Hurst said.

''They practically broke my arm shaking my hand,'' Oscar Moore said.

Norton, who has worked at the restaurant for a month and doesn't know how to open the cash register, was upset when Moore and Guerry shot at the robber.

''I was just scared they were going to miss and hit me,'' she said.

Police said Moore and Guerry won't be charged. Moore has a permit to carry a gun; it is unknown if Guerry has a similar permit from Alabama. He couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.

Moore believes with ''the weakness of our judicial system,'' a person confronted with a robbery should shoot to kill if given the opportunity.

''Somewhere along the line, we the people have to start protecting ourselves.''

[pax]

Thanks, Glenn. Muchly appreciated!

pax

[David Armstrong]

If a bum on the street politely asked for my cash I would turn him down as I have no extra to spare so why comply with someone trying to force me into it?
Because failure to comply can end up costing far more than you lose by compliance. That is the key, IMO....what course of action is the most likely to minimize loss of resources.
And honor is as much a reason to fight as anything.
Not sure how honorable it is to leave a family without a father, but this sounds a whole lot like why so many gangbangers fight.

[hogdogs]

i am not a gang banger... I do not go lookin' for trouble but if trouble comes lookin' for me I just haven't learned to run...
I have managed to stay alive thru the growth of my kids and my daughter... My daughter is 17 and knows her daddy ain't about to comply with no lowlife punk.
Brent

[Daryl]

I agree with Brent.

Arizona allows you to use physical, and/or deadly physical force if you are in fear of your life; OR, to the extent necessary to stop a serious felony in progress. That list of serious felonies included armed robbery.

I have absolutely no use for a thief, and leaving them the option of killing me (there were armed and threatening people, right?) is not ok with me if I can avoid it.

So, if I'm in a restaurant, eating dinner and minding my own business when a thug or two come in with guns to threaten my life, I'm most likely going to do something about it. At the first chance I have to end the threat, I'm probably going to do just that. Having a handgun in my hand under the table, and dropping the piece of trash when they approach me is likely.

I don't go around looking for trouble with other people, and I expect others to treat me with the same respect.

Daryl

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't think anyone disagrees with the right to take action against a lethal threat. However, that gets way confounded with what action is best to take.

Getting shot while waving a fork probably has a high probability of bad outcome than just giving over the wallet.

If the guy doesn't approach you and is just hitting the cash register - then the ambiguity starts. My story guy ran out after being shot. That he could run means he certainly could have fired into the waitress or the geezers.

There's no guarantees that action or inaction will be best and that's why someone argue for a continuum of response as compared to the automatic shootup based on philosopy.

l

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn,
I think there are a lot of brave courageous people out here in Internet Land. I bet most of them would s*it their pants and give up the wallet.:rolleyes:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

. I bet most of them would s*it their pants and give up the wallet

Well, that will be one stinky wallet. :barf:

[David Armstrong]

the first chance I have to end the threat, I'm probably going to do just that. Having a handgun in my hand under the table, and dropping the piece of trash when they approach me is likely.
Again, there is that curious assumption that just because we are the good guy our actions will always be successful, nothing will ever go wrong, the bad guys will always drop like a rock with just one shot, nobody else will ever be hurt, and so on. This case is particularly problematic, of course, because of multiple BGs.

[Lurper]

While I don't agree with DA's solution, he is right in that we have debated this topic to death before.
I did want to comment on this however:
On one of his latest radio segments he speaks of some force on force training he did for one of his PDTV shows and told us how many times he was "killed" while in these types of scenarios. I think one was a conveinience store holdup and another was a disgruntled employee and Tom was trying to "save" the boss from being shot. He said on his show that he got killed almost EVERY time he tried to intervene. He lived when he ran.
This is a perfect example of a useless and misleading test. About the only thing it tells you is that Mr. G gets killed whenever he tries it in that setting. The fact that all of the players know the scenario ahead of time invalidates the results. Even if all of the players didn't know ahead of time including the "good guy", the validity is still questionable. IRL, the theif may have no intention of shooting anyone, that would result in a different outcome than if he walked in intending to kill after he robbed. Also, The good guy may decide not to intervene, to intervene sooner or later, to use different tactics, etc. Not to mention the different skill levels, the mental attitude, fear, effects of drugs, alcohol, getting laid or not the night before and numerous other factors. There are plenty of cases where someone intervened and prevailed, there are also cases where they intervened and didn't. In this case, the test means nothing.

[hogdogs]

Tennessee, I bet you are right about that! But not all will chit and git...
I have looked that coward that won't show his face while packin' a hay knife in the face far too many times to worry about it now...
If told to handle over anything i will answer with a heartfelt and serious NO!
They can Kiss my butt, fight shoot whatever they want. This is on the internet but it is not internet chest thumping. Anyone that knows me well also knows I am not the one to run or comply to threats of any sort. Now if my kid was grabbed as a bargaining chip they can have my wallet and underwear... Once my kid is released I am goin marathon man huntin them down for scaring her.:mad:
Brent

[pax]

Lurper,

A good role play takes all those types of decisions into consideration. The "good guy" goes into the scenario knowing nothing of what the role players will do. The person in charge directs the role players to do certain things in response to the good guy's actions. For example, the director might tell two role playing panhandlers, "Okay, if the good guy gives you a solid and clear voice direction, do what he says and back off, go away, whatever. If he doesn't use a good command voice, or if he backpedals without talking, follow him and get into his personal space. And if he pulls a gun, I want one of you to run and the other one to freeze."

That's the way a good FOF director sets the scene, and it is very realistic because it includes multiple branching outcomes depending upon the good guy's actions, and several places for human judgement (what's a "good command voice"? = that's up to the players to decide, whether they would be intimidated by it or whether it sounded fearful & weak. Just as in real life, a sometimes-panhandler might also be a sometimes-mugger depending upon the intended target's reaction to his opening gambit).

Far more realistic for the particpant than merely daydreaming online! Everyone's brave online, all command voices are deep and authoritative rather than squeaky and weak, all shots hit, all bad guys succomb or surrender.

Real life's even more chaotic than role play, but role play is far better than online mind games.

pax

[Tennessee Gentleman]

pax,

Well said and the real value of the role play is you can imagine how much much more chaotic it is in real life.

If some of the people posting here actually try to do what they claim they will they might end up as great candidates for Darwin Awards.

I don't know what you think but I have always seen the bad guy thing like this.

Since the bad guy picks the time and place and method of attack then he/she is in front of the power curve and therefore has a great advantage over us good guys.

The CCW good guy has one advantage I believe that he/she MAY use and that is surprise and the ignorance of the BG that the Good Guy is carrying. That might negate the attacker's initial advantage. Maybe bad guys EXPECT their prey to be armed but I don't think so.

If the BG doesn't know I am carrying then I MAY get to pick the time and place of my response that will put him on the bad side of the OODA loop. One of the reasons I don't really care for open carry.

[JohnKSa]

Did that.With all due respect, you most certainly did not.

You provided a sentence that supported a DIFFERENT assertion, not the one we were discussing. I made that abundantly clear in my last post and it has not escaped my notice that you made no effort to rebut that point but instead merely repeated what the sentence supported--which was not what you originally stated in the paragraph that I have quoted, requoted and re-requoted.did you read the Worrall book?Again I refer you to the burden of proof fallacy. It is not my responsibility to research YOUR assertions. You made the assertions, you provide the evidence to support them. Telling someone to go read a book, go take a class in research statistics, go find the evidence, is not a valid response, not a polite response, not a constructive response, not a response that will garner you any credibility in the long run.

Responsible, constructive debate demands that those who make assertions (statements of fact) be willing to either provide supporting evidence, be willing to modify the statement to one of opinion rather than fact or even retract the statement if the situation calls for it. Those who refuse to do any of the above can not be considered a credible source.The other is that there is other data that provides some evidence of a factor that is not addressed in the Kleck article.I have asked you repeatedly to provide this data and you have, over a period of several days come up with all manner of creative reasons why you can't or won't.

At this point it is clear that you will not (or can not) provide supporting evidence for your disagreement with my comment. That is most unfortunate.

[Lurper]

A good role play takes all those types of decisions into consideration.
Therein is where the single biggest problem lies: not every director is "good". Not only that, some have predispostions for certain outcomes, procedures, etc. Even w/a good director, there are far too many variables that effect the outcome than can't be simulated to a reasonable degree to say that it correlates to the outcome. Again, you can't simulate the purpose or intent, effects of any of the substances or myraid other factors that not only effect the aggressors actons, but also effect his reactions, responses and ultimately the outcome of the entire situation. Not to mention the difference in skill, ability, equipment, mental and physical state.

The only way you could possibly come close to anything that correlates to real life would be to take total strangers and (for example) put one inside a store, give him a set of tasks to perform while telling the other to go rob this store sometime today. While I'm not discounting the training value, to say it relates to any type of outcome in real life is just not true.

Not to say that it can't effect the outcome of those involved, but to use it as a guide to 1. tell people this is what will (or is likely to) happen 2. you should base your decision to get involved or not, is hogwash. Even for those involved in the training, it is a double edged sword. FoF could build your confidence to a point where you intervene when you wouldn't have before the training or vice-versa. Either way you can't predict the outcome.

Which is the crux and weakness of this argument. Whether to intervene or not should be a personal decision based on several factors including skill, environment, gut feeling, emotional, mental, physical states and the same states percieved in the counterpart. To say that there is an argument to be made based on results of FoF is disingenuous.

There are plenty of cases where unskilled individuals have intervened even against multiple assailants and prevailed. I cited many of them in a previous thread. There are also plenty of cases where individuals comply and are killed anyway. You can use statistics to base your actions on if you want, but to base your actions on FoF is kind of absurd.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

but to use it as a guide to 1. tell people this is what will (or is likely to) happen 2. you should base your decision to get involved or not, is hogwash.

I respectfully disagree. Using the results of FoF drills can help give you an idea of what you might face and using that training to make descisions is no more hogwash than:

Whether to intervene or not should be a personal decision based on several factors including skill, environment, gut feeling, emotional, mental, physical states and the same states percieved in the counterpart.

Gut feeling? I think the more you study and know the better. Can't remember how often my "gut" feeling has been wrong. I think training is better than intuition.

[Socrates]

As I get older, and still owe the government a house or so, I take comfort in dieing, and depriving them of the benefit of my education.

I say that because when I was mugged, I may have got stiches from the Walther butt to my head, but, I survived, and, if the guys hadn't left, I was going to do everything I could with my hands to kill him. Now, I might be carrying a gun, so, the scenario might be just a bit different.

I've had the tar knocked out of my by 2 world heavyweight karate champs, and, has been noted, when guy are high or drunk they take punishment, and, keep coming. IF I ever face that situation again, I take comfort in knowing it's a good day to die, that I won't face the oppression of student loans, unlike AIG, I seem to have to pay, and, I have a few plans.

As a old boxer martial artist, I'm not an easy target coming in, even at my age. I'm still lifting every other day, and, I plan to start getting in the dojo again, very soon, due to my job, and area I'm in.

As I come in, my head is NOT easy to hit(think Mike Tyson bobbing and weaving, coming in..., and, most gang bangers, and punks use 9mm and under guns. The history of bad guys soaking up punishment from such calibers, and continuing to come is historically proven.

If that is the way I'm to go, I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can, and, that's a bit, to take the banger with me...

[Lurper]

Using the results of FoF drills can help give you an idea of what you might face
In and of itself, this is true. But to say that there is a correlation between the outcome in real life and the outcome in FoF is not true. Statistically, the good guy doesn't get killed every time. In fact, they don't get killed that often. There are too many variables that can't be duplicated. To say it helps prepare you (in terms of skill, stress inoculation, tactics, etc.) is one thing. But to say that because you get killed every time in FoF, that anyone who intervenes is likely to get killed is quite a stretch at best.

Additionally, how did they define "killed" in their scenario? Just a hit anywhere? A hit C.O.M? Not only that, but how did they determine the actor's response to; someone intervening, a gun being introduced, the reaction of the actors to the previous, the effects of being shot at, the effects of being hit, fear, surprise, adrenaline, pain and countless other things that can't be simulated? No matter how well it is set up, the players in the FoF training are primed. They know something is going to happen. They aren't likely to get caught in condition white with their trigger finger up their nose when the defecation hits the oscillation. Yet that is typically how it starts in real life.

Again, FoF has training value, but it has little value as a predictor of likely outcomes in real life situations.

[Microgunner]

It is absolutely ridiculous to think that man can fly in a machine that weighs several tons, yet it happens regularly. What is ridiculous has no bearing on what the facts are.



???????????????? Did you fall and bump your head?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Again, FoF has training value, but it has little value as a predictor of likely outcomes in real life situations.

I think it has more value than keyboard bravado or watching a couple of Rambo movies. Other than "gut" feel what would you propose as a way to better think these things out prior (because thinking them out when it happens might be too late)? My concern reading these posts are keyboard commandos believing they can intervene in deadly situations and come out OK because they are tough on the Internet or it looks easy on TV. But, I also believe that virtually (99.99999%)everyone who thumps his chest on these boards wouldn't do what they say they would. FoF I would hope might show them the folly of their ways.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Again, FoF has training value, but it has little value as a predictor of likely outcomes in real life situations.

I'm sorry to say this is unsupported BS - time and again it has been demonstrated that simulation training has led to better outcomes.

1. In VietNam, our pilots initially had trouble with the North VietNamese fighers. We introduced the FOF exercises for the pilots and our results were better.

2. The current military runs FOF exercises all the time for soldiers - do you think we would have better results in they just watched war movies and read internet commandos spiel.

3. In fire or disaster situations, the teams with simulations training and regular people with drills survived when others died. In 9/11, Morgan Stanley employees made it due to their drills, when others died.

Arguing against simulation training is ridiculous. We should just all read Guns and Ammo on stopping power and consider ourself heroes of the universe?

When someone says that they will take a shotgun blast to the chest for their wallet or thinking about discretion in starting a gun fight is a 'chick' thing, then we know that we are just taking about internet ego trips.

[Microgunner]

I also believe that virtually (99.99999%)everyone who thumps his chest on these boards wouldn't do what they say they would.


Really? And you're the .00001% exception?

[pax]

<moderator hat>

After 7 pages, I should probably just close the thread. Very few threads continue to be worthwhile after the first couple of pages, as tempers become frayed and the signal/noise ratio goes south.

And yet, some good points are still being made. And I hate to close down a discussion that people are enjoying or still getting some benefit from.

So... please take a deep breath, everyone. Think twice, post once. Don't be rude or inflammatory. Make your points without impugning the character or intentions of people who disagree with you.

There will be NO further personal attacks on this thread, not even mild ones. The next even mildly snarky or insulting comment will see the thread closed.

Pretty sure that even a longer thread can be saved, if everyone involved works at it. And I'd sure rather see the conversation wind down gracefully than to watch it burn out in flames.

Thanks.

</moderator hat>

pax

[David Armstrong]

With all due respect, you most certainly did not.
And with equal due respect, I most certainly did. Again, you might not agree with how it was done, but let's not say it wasn't done at all.
You provided a sentence that supported a DIFFERENT assertion, not the one we were discussing.
I have presented two assertions. One, that the Kleck statement is misleading in the way it is commonly used,; two, that fighting back can result in greater injury. The quotation I cited directly supports the 2nd issue. The 1st issue was covered by an explanation of why the common application was misleading.
You made the assertions, you provide the evidence to support them
I did, you still failed to check out the material, so why did we go through this little exercise in futility?
Telling someone to go read a book, go take a class in research statistics, go find the evidence, is not a valid response, not a polite response, not a constructive response, not a response that will garner you any credibility in the long run.
The reason it fails as a response, IMO, is that few ever do what is suggested, thus are unable to fully appreciate or fully understand what is being talked about.
Those who refuse to do any of the above can not be considered a credible source.
How about those that do the above, but then the other party continues to deny it was done? John, I've given you two sources of information to look at that support my positions. If you don't want to look at them, fine, no skin off my nose, you don't think they apply, fine, still no skin off my nose.
I have asked you repeatedly to provide this data and you have, over a period of several days come up with all manner of creative reasons why you can't or won't.
I have summarized the data and told you where you could find it, to include citing a recognized source in the field. If you choose to ignore that information or decline to utilize the resources offered to you, it is not my fault. I feel no obligation to post chapters from books, entire DOJ tables, and other such items.
Again, this is why I usually decline to join in these silly "prove it" contests. Evidence is asked for, but when given it is rejected. Sources are questioned, but when identified they are not looked at. It is almost always a complete waste of time.

[David Armstrong]

To say that there is an argument to be made based on results of FoF is disingenuous.
Got to disagree. While there may be an argument on just how far to take the results of good FoF, there isn't (or shouldn't be) any argument that FoF does provide a good source of information on whether or not things can be done and the possible outcomes of those things. Like any other testing and training environment it is limited, but just because it is limited doesn't mean it should be ignored or rejected out of hand. It's just one more bit of knowledge to toss into the mix.

[Lurper]

I'm sorry to say this is unsupported BS - time and again it has been demonstrated that simulation training has led to better outcomes.

Glenn, you,re missing the point. It's not a question of training value. It is a question of saying that because someone dies every single time they intervene in FoF, you can use those results to support the argument that if you intervene you will die. That is unsupported BS. Training undoubtedly results in better performance, but it would be like a fighter pilot saying that because he shoots down every opponent in the simulator, he will win every engagement. Then, taking it a step further and saying that becuase he is a USAF pilot that every USAF pilot will win every engagement because he did.

FoF I would hope might show them the folly of their ways.
You base your decisions on several factors. But FoF cannot and is not a predictor of outcome that is relevant to anyone other than the actors involved. Again, you can look at what has happened historically and base your decision on that. But there are still too many variables to say that you will live or die if you intervene. TG, you focus on two words (gut feeling) out of an entire list of things I said one could base their decision on and ignored the rest. Sorry, but my gut feeling is usually correct. So while you may not trust yours, I trust mine. I also trust my advanced skill level to have more of an impact on the outcome than a table of results from someone else's FoF training.


. . . there isn't (or shouldn't be) any argument that FoF does provide a good source of information on whether or not things can be done and the possible outcomes of those things.
Sure there is and it's a valid argument. How many times have you heard someone talk about losing against someone who already has their gun out? Yet, in real life, people prevail all of the time under those circumstances. How many times in FoF training is the bad guy told to be scared and run away when bullets start flying? Another valid point that was brought to my attention was mutual death. How often in FoF do you hear of mutual death occurring? Yet it very rarely ever occurs in real life. You can't simulate the reaction of the actors to being shot at or shot. You can't simulate what effect the different states of mind will have on the outcome. About the only valid data it gives you is how the actors would fare if in a similar situation against an opponent of similar skill. But, you can't correlate that to the likely outcome for everyone.

[David Armstrong]

About the only valid data it gives you is how the actors would fare if in a similar situation against an opponent of similar skill. But, you can't correlate that to the likely outcome for everyone.
I don't agree with the first sentence (I think there are many other valid data oints one can get), but I do strongly agree with the second, and I think it is a good point. We often fixate on how a particular person did or how a particular person does in a situation, and that then becomes the default for what will be always be done, and that is a bad way to view things.

It is a question of saying that because someone dies every single time they intervene in FoF, you can use those results to support the argument that if you intervene you will die.
I'm not getting that from Glenn, or others. I see it more as a "FoF has shown that this action has a high potential for death or serious injury to the person who chooses it, and one should understand that fact when deciding to act." Would you agree with that phrasing?

[JohnKSa]

I have presented two assertions.I'm sure you've presented many more than that. However I'm only interested in ONE of your assertions and I've quoted the paragraph in which you've made it at least 3 times, probably more. Your implication at this point that there's any confusion about what assertion I'm talking about is blatantly disengenuous.Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher. So yes, if you have a gun and the BG doesn't, things work out pretty good for you. If you have a gun and the BG has a gun, maybe not so good.I asked you for the data you used to arrive at your assertion. Here is the only thing you've provided."At the individual level, armed resistance with a gun can reduce the likelihood that a crime is completed but might increase the victim's chance of becoming injured." CRIME CONTROL IN AMERICA (2ed) by John L. Worrall, page 258."Your initial statement indicates that you know of data controlled for the factor of whether or not the BG is armed with a gun. You will note that your "supporting evidence" makes absolutely no mention of whether the BG is armed with a gun or not.

Therefore you have provided no data to support the assertion that I have repeatedly asked you to support. The only "supporting evidence" you've provided makes absolutely no mention of the main point of the paragraph I keep quoting.

You haven't even established that you know of any data that is actually relevant to the claims you made in the paragraph I keep quoting. Doing so would be a very good place for you to start.

[dabigguns357]

I can't resist telling of another choice that we have,instead of watching to bad guys rob the waffle house and or you.You don't have to shoot up the place or die trying,simply don't go there.The food aint that great nor is it worth getting a gun waved in anyones general direction.Stay home and make your own waffles.I'm sure it will be a lot cheaper in the long run,no tipping, lawyer fees,loss of job,family or better yet your own life.Also if you find a hair in your food you will know it is yours.:eek:


See problem solved now who's up for eggs and waffles.:D

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Really? And you're the .00001% exception?

I don't think you will find any of my posts on this forum with any chest thumping. The 99.999% refers to those folks.

TG, you focus on two words (gut feeling) out of an entire list of things I said one could base their decision on and ignored the rest.

No I read them all. The gut feeling is the most spurious. I just read a post eleswhere where a man who lived out in the country came home and saw several men with rifles walking around his house. His "gut feeling" said they were bad guys but they turned out to be innocent hunters some of whom he knew.

Sorry, but I doubt your intuition is much better.

You list skill level as one of your predictors. What do you mean by that? Just marksmanship? You have read a lot of books? What training would you recommend that is better than FoF? I haven't read that yet.

[Brit]

F on F training is an other arrow in the quiver of training, with common sense scenarios, can help in promoting reaction to stimulus, also show how fast people in good physical condition can move.

But if you have been in violent encounters, and did OK, should give you a better idea of how you will perform in an other one. One thing I can say, thinking is too slow! For instance a hand moving quickly towards your face, should elicit an instant response, an unbidden response! If you have to think do I move my feet, lift my right arm, or left! You are too late!

On the way to Blackwaters facility, a friend and I decided to stop at a Waffle House, the couple near were I live are nice and clean, foods good, but not places I go to a lot, 4 times a year? This was 2AM, saw the sign, headed off the I 95.

The place was dirty, full of wannabe gangsters, lots of gold chains, a local PD vehicle outside, every place that you could place a cup or plate, had several! Every one was smoking, the table we picked was in a corner, to the right of the door, the corner facing us had your Pay Duty Officer installed in it.

We stacked the plates and cups on the counter, I wiped the table with a napkin, a few, threw them in the big garbage container right on the floor, the overflowing tin foil ashtray went in there as well.

The off duty walked over, retrieved the tin foil 1p ash tray, shook it, and put it back on the table "These cost money" we both just looked at him, what's to say? He looked back, then went outside, my buddy said he has called for back up! We left. We have cut Waffle Houses off our list of stops.

[alloy]

Brit...if you dont mind me asking...

probobly worthy of a thead in and of itself...but...overall Blackwater experience?

[Brit]

We went to an IDPA Match, bloody cold, nice facility, 50 cal going off all the time, CQB indoor facility for stages.. Bloody cold, saw the vehicles they make, mine proof?

Our GPS crapped out before we got there-Blocked? Call to 911, the Cops saw us on there Sat Nav, re Cell chip, guided us in, cool.

[alloy]

"Our GPS crapped out before we got there-Blocked? Call to 911, the Cops saw us on there Sat Nav, re Cell chip, guided us in, cool."

Thanks...Virginia area has some funny zones as well.

[David Armstrong]

Your implication at this point that there's any confusion about what assertion I'm talking about is blatantly disengenuous.
I can only call it like I see it, John. You seem to be confusing the assertions and arguing that supporting evidence for one is irrelevant because it doesn't support the other.
Doing so would be a very good place for you to start.
Getting a copy of the material I cited for you and reading it would be a very good place for you to start. When you have done so, let me know. Until then, your constant arguing that I have not done something that I have done is rather hollow. When you have read the material, get back with me and we'll discuss it.

[JohnKSa]

When you have read the material, get back with me and we'll discuss it.To date the only quote you've provided doesn't even establish that your source is relevant since the quote doesn't even so much as mention the factor of whether the BG is armed or not. Even we were to ignore the burden of proof issue (and I have no intention of ignoring it) it's ludicrous to suggest that I go off and read a book when you haven't even established its relevance.You seem to be confusing the assertions and arguing that supporting evidence for one is irrelevant because it doesn't support the other.Nope, I'm only interested in your supporting the SINGLE assertion that I have asked you about repeatedly (i.e. Data controlled for the factor of a BG armed with a gun shows that my statement based on Kleck's study is misleading.). The other assertion you have tried to introduce as a red herring is of no interest to me.

How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread starts to believe that you don't really have the data? Don't you see that if you keep this up that people will start to believe that you contradicted my statement based purely on your own opinion but pretended to have data in order to add credence to your assertion?

[Brit]

The FBI in Quantico have a Hogans Alley, not for live fire Al La Clint Eastwood, but typical arrest scenarios, based on actual procedures taught.

The whole area was made up of real buildings, the taps worked, the toilets flushed, all lights and light switches worked, but the most amazing part of the classes, real role players, paid actors! Who acted like real criminals, the one I got to watch, twice, different agents, same role players.

Motel room, Man and Woman, stealing Truck load of TVs. Female, white, around 25 YOA, good looking, well dressed, .25 pistol in side pocket of pants.

Set up outside, discussion on arrest warrant, Interstate trafficking of stolen goods. Polite knock, and off it started, the role players were terrific, the young agents quite competent, one was tasked to watch the woman (this Agent was an ex Cop) never took his eyes off her, her request to use the bathroom! "Sorry ma rm, we have no female agent with us at this time"

He went in handcuffs, she stayed, timed out. Every body joined in the critique, very well done, pucker factor? around 500! If she had accessed the pistol, they lost! Everybody dressed the part. No not force on force, but could have turned into one! The Motel had a Bedroom, and an Office.

Very impressive, very real. Good reactions on the part of all involved.

[David Armstrong]

To date the only quote you've provided doesn't even establish that your source is relevant since the quote doesn't even so much as mention the factor of whether the BG is armed or not.
But the material the quote is from does address that, as you would know if you would stop arguing about what the stuff says and go read it to find out what is said. Sorry, John, but I'm not going to post 10 pages of material here. Just not going to happen.
Data controlled for the factor of a BG armed with a gun shows that my statement based on Kleck's study is misleading
OK, John, if you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns, go right ahead. I don't think too many others will follow along, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead. I really don't care. While we are at it, you did not properly source the Kleck material, so I suppose you have not met your own burden of proof.
How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread starts to believe that you don't really have the data?
How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread notices that you have not gone and checked out the information provided to you?

Perhaps if you'd read the info I directed you to we could discuss it, instead of whether or not I have provided the info.

[JohnKSa]

Sorry, John, but I'm not going to post 10 pages of material here.Strawman. Nobody asked for 10 pages. Nobody asked for even one full page. Second, you've already posted several pages of excuses for why you won't/can't/shouldn't have to provide the data. If, as you say, this data exists you could have met the request with a few sentences and a cite.

You've expended FAR more effort in NOT answering the request than it would have required to answer the request and the longer it goes on, the less reasonable it is for you to pretend that the reason you can't give the data is that you don't want to type stuff into the forum. :rolleyes:OK, John, if you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns, go right ahead.Does not address the request for the controlled DATA you implied you were using to arrive at your assertion.

I agree that it makes sense that it would be more dangerous, but in order to determine if the difference is significant I need to see the data. It could easily increase the risk of injury a few percentage points WITHOUT making it more dangerous than compliance. One must compare the NUMBERS to determine the RELATIVE risk before one can determine which course of action entails the least risk.

You could end this by providing the stats from this controlled data showing the difference in injury risk between engaging and armed BG and an unarmed BG vs the injury risk between compliance against an armed BG and an unarmed BG and then providing the cite for your quote. Not 10 pages, only a sentence or two.I suppose you have not met your own burden of proof.If you want a link to Kleck's data (http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html) why didn't you ask. I would have provided it immediately. Do you really need a link or is this just another red herring?How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread notices that you have not gone and checked out the information provided to you?As I've mentioned before (even if we ignore the burden of proof issue which I have no intention of doing), you have not even established the relevance of this book you keep trying to get me to read. Doing so would take maybe a sentence or two and would be a VERY good place for you to start.

[David Armstrong]

Strawman.
It's a strawman that you try to claim it a strawman.
If, as you say, this data exists you could have met the request with a few sentences and a cite.
Did that. sorry you don't like it, but it is there. Again, if you'd maybe take a minute to go look at the information we could stop this silliness.
You've expended FAR more effort in NOT answering the request...
It hasn't been any effort at all, but again the request was answered. You don't like the answer that is fine, but the request was answered.
You've expended FAR more effort in NOT answering the request than it would have required to answer the request
Just as you've expended FAR more effort in NOT looking at the source provided than needed.
the less reasonable it is for you to pretend that the reason you can't give the data is that you don't want to type stuff into the forum.
I can do lots of things, John. I usually refuse to be bullied into doing anything.
Does not address the request for the controlled DATA you implied you were using to arrive at your assertion.
So, you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns? Fine, go ahead. I think few will follow you down that path.
You could end this by providing the stats....
Why should I provide you with something you apparently are not willing to look for yourself?
If you want a link to Kleck's data why didn't you ask.
Because I didn't need a link. Unlike you, I did some research myself to include the original source material, which led to the "misleading" comment. I only mentioned it to show that you are demanding others do something that you yourself have apparently not felt it necessary to do. When someone makes a statement like that I tend to give them the courtesy of assuming they are not lying and are quoting what they have learned with a level of accuracy. If I think there is a problem I search out the data, I do the research, then comment on it. Unless we are going to start treating the internet as if it were an academic journal, I think we all need to keep that concept at the forefront.
As I've mentioned before (even if we ignore the burden of proof issue which I have no intention of doing), you have not even established the relevance of this book you keep trying to get me to read.
John, I don't care if you read it or not. I have said it is relevant. Now, you may choose to call me a liar and say it isn't, but until you read it it's pretty obvious that you don't know if it is relevant or not. Here, some more bits of literature that you might want to read if you are going to discuss GG/BG interactions, robbery dynamics, and so on:

Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.

Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker, “Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture.” 1997.

Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988

Jody Miller, “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 1998.

Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996.

Yeager, M.G., J.D. Alviani, and N. Loving, "How Well Does the Handgun Protect You and Your Family" in THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE (1990).

[JohnKSa]

Another post that required significantly more typing/effort than actually answering the question would take.

More attempts to shift the burden of proof. In the time it took you to find & type in all those titles you could have provided the data to support your initial assertion.

At this point you've just about convinced me that the data doesn't exist since you've had eight days to provide it and to date you have not even been able to establish that you know of any sources that contain relevant data.So, you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns? I addressed this issue quite clearly in my last post--I don't think it's possible to misunderstand what I said. Subjective comparisons do not answer the question. The question can only be answered with objective data--numbers.I usually refuse to be bullied into doing anything.RIDICULOUS! You made the initial assertion (and implication of supporting data) of your own free will. It is the right of any party in a debate to ask for that supporting data once you based your assertion on it and claimed that it existed and it is your responsibility as a participant in this debate to provide it. Demanding that you "do your duty", as it were, is not bullying. Besides, who has to be "bullied" into providing data that supports their arguments? People WANT to do that because it bolsters their arguments and their credibility.

Bottom line?
Just another post that provides no data.

You seem to be laboring under some misapprehensions. Here is reality:
THIS IS NOT YOUR CLASSROOM, YOU DO NOT GET TO ASSIGN "HOMEWORK" HERE.
IF YOU MAKE AN ASSERTION AND CLAIM THAT IT'S BASED ON REAL DATA THEN YOU BACK IT UP WITH REAL DATA OR YOU LOSE YOUR CREDIBILITY.
PROVIDING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND YOUR RESPONSIBILITY ALONE.

[David Armstrong]

In the time it took you to find & type in all those titles you could have provided the data to support your initial assertion.
Umm, and just how do you know how long that took? It seems you are starting to make a lot of claims that you cannot support, John.
At this point you've just about convinced me that the data doesn't exist since you've had eight days to provide it and to date you have not even been able to establish that you know of any sources that contain relevant data.
As you have thus far refused to look at any of the sources, you can't know if it is relevant or not.
Subjective comparisons do not answer the question.
Sure they can. You might not like the answer, you may not agree with the answer, but they still provide an answer.
It is the right of any party in a debate
I wasn't aware this was a debate. If so, perhaps we should decide what type of debate and what rules to follow in advance??
You made the initial assertion (and implication of supporting data) of your own free will.
Just as you made your initial assertion (and implication of supporting data) of your own free will. I guess the difference is that I accepted the conclusions you offered as being given in good faith and did not start demanding more proof or original sources or all that other nonsense.
Demanding that you "do your duty", as it were, is not bullying.
Not only do you not have the right to demand anything of me, you also do not have the right to decide what my "duty" is. I have answered your questions in a manner that I feel is appropriate. As I've said before, you don't like my answers, feel free to look at the data and provide your own.
Bottom line?
Just another post that provides no data.
Bottom line? A post that provided SIX sources of information on the topic being discussed that you have rejected without ever looking at them.
Here is reality:
Yes, here is reality---you don't get to demand that I answer questions in a format that you approve of. Suggesting you look stuff up yourself is not assigning homework, it is suggesting yo expand your knowledge in an area. Refusing to look at material when it is offered is a far greater loss of credibility than anything else, IMO. I don't insist people do research for me and I don't respect those who insist I do it for them and then try to make an issue of the fact that they don't like that I won't do their work for them.

[JohnKSa]

A post that provided SIX sources of information on the topic being discussed that you have rejected without ever looking at them.Wrong.

That is not providing supporting data, that is making a homework assignment. "Here, students, go read these books and we'll discuss them tomorrow in class."I wasn't aware this was a debate. If so, perhaps we should decide what type of debate and what rules to follow in advance??Now THAT I believe. You've treated this as if this is your classroom. You make a statement claiming that it's backed by hard data and respond to requests for that data by making reading assignments and indicating you'll address the issue when the "students" have completed their work.

Rules? Just the standard rules of logic--the burden of proof is one of the standards.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
"the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)"
http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml
SHIFTING THE ONUS OF PROOF: This is when your opponent makes a claim, provides no evidence for it, and then expects you to find evidence of it. Your opponent is making the claim, so he should logically have to provide evidence. Shifting the onus (or burden) of proof to you is a fallacy and a very low tactic to engage in.
http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm#shifting
"The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made."

To date you have provided exactly NO DATA that relates whether the BG is armed to the likelihood of injury for a defender who resists with a firearm. You haven't even provided a quote from any of your "homework assignments" that establishes that they contain data relating to that issue.

[vytoland]

OK boys, now back to the real topic.

You need to get the BG in & out as quickly as possible , so I can get back to my waffle and coffee before either one gets cold. You got it? :rolleyes:

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What was this thread about anyway? I'm lost:confused:

[pax]

It's getting about time to close it, I'm thinking -- but I'm also thinking that David Armstrong should have the final word here if he wants it.

Thanks for keeping your cool, everyone. Interesting thread! :cool:

pax

[Brit]

Remember there was an original post? You know the first one?

A very interesting part of it, one that Police in running after a ? Shoplifter? a Purse snatcher? a bail out (Wow that should get your attention) as I was saying, a bail out from a high speed car chase, one that Police do in error all the time... they run with a duty handgun in hand, a get ready move? that ties up the best hand, makes for unbalanced running. etc. Your pistol is better off secured!

Me.. I see myself most likely un-holstering my weapon and keeping it out of sight ready for immediate use if necessary. I think presenting at this point may make me an instant target but I would love to hear your ideas.


Well here is my idea on that sentence, when you decide to go to shots fired THEN YOU RETRIEVE YOUR GLOCK!--- AND FIRE SHOTS BUT TILL THAT TIME LEAVE IT ALONE! A holster is a secure carry device till you require your CCW.

[David Armstrong]

That is not providing supporting data, that is making a homework assignment. "Here, students, go read these books and we'll discuss them tomorrow in class."
And by reading those books one might be able to find and understand the data I'm talking about. I've spent 30 years reading and researching in this area, and I'm not going to scramble to find a particular table or data set every time somebody tells me I have to do so or I'm a liar.
Now THAT I believe.
If you believe that, then why have you been demanding that one party follow cewrtain rules that only you have thought we were using, while nobody else (including yourself) has been held to the same standard?
You've treated this as if this is your classroom.
Again, it seems you are making wild claims with nothinjg to base such claims on. AFAIK, you have never been in one of my classrooms, therefore you have NO IDEA what you are talking about when you say what I would do oi my classroom.
To date you have provided exactly NO DATA that relates whether the BG is armed to the likelihood of injury for a defender who resists with a firearm.
To date I have provided you with SEVEN total sources of information relating to that issue, none of which you have apparently taken the time to examine.

[David Armstrong]

It's getting about time to close it, I'm thinking -- but I'm also thinking that David Armstrong should have the final word here if he wants it.
Thank you, and I will. The reason I hate to get into these "prove it/show me the data" type of discussion is exactly what happened here. Almost inevitably whatever "proof" is provided by one side is deemed by the other side as irrelevant, or that it doesn't support what was said, or it is not good enough, or any of a dozen other issues that result in arguments just like this. Then we end up in long discussions about the source of the information instead of discussing what the information says. We end up arguing over whether an answer was really an answer or not. People selectively call up various arcane rules of debate/logic/reasoning and selectively apply them, and then we end up arguing about if the rules apply and if so when they apply and so on. All of which leads to, as Tennessee Gentleman aptly put it, "What was this thread about anyway? I'm lost."
That, folks is why I tend to tell people to look up the information themselves, and suggest reading books and articles instead of looking at a single table or piece of data.
Thanks to pax for "last word" rites, and also thanks to John for keeping the discussion on a reasonably high level.

[pax]

Closed.

Thank you again, everyone.

pax