active compliance more likely to get you killed? [Archive]

Crosshair

October 9, 2008, 06:23 PM

Here is a good link on the subject.

The "Death Wish" Question (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F5074560-4270-4F85-B7A7-B56EA8A2BF50)

After examining data from the Department of Justice National Crime Victimization Survey from 1979 through 1987, Gary Kleck found that the best way to survive a criminal attack was to resist – with a gun.

Women were 2.5 times more likely to suffer serious injury if they offered no resistance than if they resisted with a gun. Having a gun made the crucial difference. Women who resisted without a gun were four times more likely to be seriously hurt than those who resisted with a gun. "In other words," writes John Lott in More Guns, Less Crime, "the best advice is to resist with a gun, but if no gun is available, it is better to offer no resistance than to fight."

In the case of men – no doubt, because of their greater physical strength – having a gun made considerably less difference in the success rate of their resistance and in the likelihood of their being injured. But it still proved advantageous. Men who offered no resistance turned out to be 1.4 times more likely to be seriously hurt than those who resisted with a gun. Men who resisted without a gun were 1.5 times more likely to be injured than those resisting with a gun.

I've seen other studies that said, on average, that ANY resistance tended to result in less overall rate of injury. Though I can't find those, have to organize my bookmarks better, and will have to go with this one.

vytoland

October 9, 2008, 11:40 PM

if you are unarmed and unwelcome enter at your own risk. but, if you are armed and an interloper, come on in and let us administer, in an efficient and expeditious manner, the remedy to purge, from soceity, another plague.

MTMilitiaman

October 9, 2008, 11:57 PM

I'll admit I haven't done much research on this and am not an authority on such matters, but I personally like the odds afforded by resisting. With or without a gun, I figure if I resist to the degree that I am able, I at least am not leaving my fate in the hands of a person obviously willing to work beyond the law to achieve his means. And I know I'd much rather my family bury me knowing that I died on my feet than whimpering on the ground. The submissive element of our society is the part that disturbs me the greatest. This nation did not achieve the status and power it current holds because it was ran by sheep. It won't stay powerful by long if it continues to be ran by sheep. If the prevailing belief is that an attitude of 'give them what they want and they'll go away,' is preferable to conflict, we can only expect violent criminal behavior to be increase as it is rewarded with compliance.

Glenn E. Meyer

October 10, 2008, 09:57 AM

And I know I'd much rather my family bury me knowing that I died on my feet than whimpering on the ground.

Did I nail it in my evaluation of the discussion! Is it about a survivable outcome or self-image?

I should have edited my post to add -

4. Do you have a reciprocal altruism or civic culture goal such that you are willing to sacrifice your self and the impact on your family such that you get hurt when you don't have to so that you may deter future criminals from attacking persons unknown to you? That sets a climate that might feed back to deter folks from attacking your loved ones (since you are dead).

All these motivations have been well worked out.

The question is what is your goal state -

1. Save your ass and lower the impact of your death on your family - situationally - this could be fight or comply.
2. Save your ego - as your family wants you dead but brave, so fight independent of the consequences - not the OP question about getting hurt.
3. Fight and Deter for the greater good of all the other schmucks in society.

Some like #1 - some regard #3 as meaninful self-sacrifice. Some say #2 but that one is hard to separate from posturing. We have had folks say they would rather risk a shotgun blast to the chest rather than fork over the wallet.

As far as studies - fighting without guns gets you hurt more. Guns seem to work the best when you fight - that was hard to figure out.

Pick your goal and then think about how you implement it.

Dwight55

October 10, 2008, 10:05 AM

Woody Hays, a former great football coach of Ohio State always said that he did not like to use a pass play in football as three things could happen and two of them were bad.

Action vs compliance, I view in the same way, . . . with action I may survive and as a bonus, survive with my family and all my belongings, . . . compliance will at least cost me some if not many of my blongings and perhaps a beating for me and/or family member(s), . . . compliance may also cost me and my family our belongings AND our lives.

Leave the word "belongings" out of the equasion, . . . suffering and/or death may result in a scenario where "no witnesses left behind" is the order of the day.

Yeah, . . . resist if there is any REASONABLE opportunity and chance of success. Comply only if there seems absolutely no other way.

An example is the old Marine who complied (in Florida, ????) until the bg's herded them into the rest room for what he took as an execution rite. When the bg wasn't looking, he whipped out his 1911 and cleaned up some of the gene pool.

May God bless,
Dwight

Glenn E. Meyer

October 10, 2008, 10:12 AM

I hear you - this is a better way to think about it than this typical question.

Do what works to maximize your survival - given you care about that.

There are way too many factors in a given situation to gurantee that choice A or B or C ... Z will give the best outcome.

Training as close as possible to the real situation gives you experience in the many ways things could go down and let's you appreciate the eventualities.

If you shut off one option because of an incomplete understanding of prediction (always thinking the mean or average will occur) or because the option doesn't fit your ego or proejcted self-image - then you have not encompassed the cosmic all of self-defense.

David Armstrong

October 10, 2008, 10:55 AM

I've seen other studies that said, on average, that ANY resistance tended to result in less overall rate of injury.
Yes, but there are also those studies that say when you resist, the severity of the injury goes up even though you are less likely to be injured. Then you get to toss in those that indicate resistance on any level decreases the likelihood of completion but increases the chance of injury. Or, as in the Kleck research you used, the fact that Kleck is using armed resistance against unarmed or lesser armed BGs in the equation, which might not be so good when the BG is also armed with a firearm, and so on. Like Glenn said, lots o fliterature out there, and lots of information, but it is very difficult to discuss it on the broad parameter most want to use.

Action vs compliance, I view in the same way
But when you list the results, you failed to list any of the problems common to action, thus you may be failing to completely or accurately understand the outcomes.

David Armstrong

October 10, 2008, 10:58 AM

I know I'd much rather my family bury me knowing that I died on my feet than whimpering on the ground.
But that leaves out the most common outcome---don't fight back, don't whimper on the ground, just comply unless compliance seems likely to increase the danger. I know my family would much rather not bury me, period. Dead hero, dead coward, it's still dead and your family is left wondering how to pick up the pieces you left behind.

pax

October 10, 2008, 11:07 AM

Dwight,

I like that analysis. I'd add one more thought to yours, too.

Yeah, . . . resist if there is any REASONABLE opportunity and chance of success.

Not all scenarios are survivable. With that in mind, there are some situations in which I've decided in advance that -- if I'm ever there -- I will fight even if I don't think I can win. In these specific scenario types, my understanding would be that nearly 100% of the time, the intended victim is killed regardless of her actions, and (for a couple of them) there's an additional element of risk that the death would be a very, very unpleasant one.

Here's my list.

I will not go anywhere at gunpoint. Everyone knows that getting to "Crime Scene #2" is bad, but there's something else to consider, too: If the bad guy wants me to go somewhere else, it's because he will be able to do something to me there that he is unwilling or unable to do to me right here, right now. Therefore no matter how bad the tactical situation seems right here and now, right here and now is the absolute best chance to fight back I will ever have and I intend to use it.

I will not be tied up. See that bit about "unpleasant death" above? I mean it. If the attacker is going to kill me anyway -- which is an extremely high likelihood once you're shackled -- I'd rather be killed suddenly and violently while fighting to escape rather than to be killed slowly and agonizingly over days. And who knows? I might win.

I will not kneel. Most of the time, when someone is forced into this position, what comes next is a bullet in the back of the skull. Once you are on your knees, you don't have any more choices left, even if do you suddenly realize what is about to happen. If you're going to save your own life in such a situation, you have to make the choice to fight back before you're on your knees.

If someone tries to take one of my children, I will fight even at the risk of my child being killed in the resultant firefight. I plan this not because I have positive assurance that I would be successful, but because I would not be able to live with myself if I simply "allowed" my child to be taken, brutalized, and his body perhaps never found. I'd rather watch him die in front of me. (Yes, that's harsh ... but given those two options and only those two, which would you choose?)

To be clear, I'm not saying I'd fight back in every situation, or that I'd throw out the risk ratio in every situation. In most cases, if I didn't have a reasonable expectation of winning, I'd cooperate and do whatever it took to get away without fighting. It's not about protecting property, mere things. It's just a fairly narrow set of possibilities where I've looked at that specific type of crime and decided it raises the stakes so high that the risk ratios no longer apply.

In these types of situations, there's a nearly complete certainty that the intended victim would die anyway if they don't fight back, or where even the thought of dying outright sounds preferable to the outcome if the victim doesn't fight back.

pax

David Armstrong

October 10, 2008, 11:49 AM

Here's my list.
Close to mine, with one addition: I will not turn my back to the BG. Much of the same reasoning as you offer in reasons 1 and 3.

Sportdog

October 10, 2008, 03:36 PM

If you survive it will really PO David & Glenn!:D

Glenn E. Meyer

October 10, 2008, 03:39 PM

Sportdog, when you actually understand what I said, post again.

David Armstrong

October 10, 2008, 04:53 PM

If you survive it will really PO David & Glenn!
I realize there's a happy face there, and I take it in the good fun it was presented, but David will love it if you survive. David has been teaching people to survive in a variety of conditions and situations for close to 3 decades. Maybe that is why David knows that getting into a gunfight is not particularly high on the survivability scale. And that is why David also knows that there is more to the survival equation than just getting through the gunfight. David loves it when the good guys survive. But David likes it even more when the good guys win. And for those who don't know the difference, I believe that lack of understanding is a big part of the problem.

Mannlicher

October 10, 2008, 05:55 PM

spuspgI have heard resisting is more likely to keep you alive and comliance will get you killed. Is this true?

yes, and then again, no. Depends.

David Armstrong

October 11, 2008, 12:19 PM

Good summary!

JohnKSa

October 12, 2008, 12:02 PM

Yes, but there are also those studies that say ... Then you get to toss in those that indicate ...Who did these studies? Noted criminologists? Investigative reporters for CBS? Rebecca Peters?

Who funded these studies? VPC? NRA? Brady Center? GOA?

I know you think I'm just being argumentative, but these are questions that must be addressed in order to put the results of these studies into context.

Speaking of the results of these studies, it would be nice to see them instead of just one sentence paraphrases. I know you understand the principle that one person's summary/assessment/paraphrase of a study may not accurately reflect the study results since you have, in the past accused me of misquoting/misusing Kleck's data.

Tennessee Gentleman

October 12, 2008, 01:14 PM

John,
You are dead on here. The infamous line "Studies show...".

I am not a criminologist (although I have a degree in it) but I have learned that whenever you quote studies you have to (pardon the pun) study the study.

My young niece just got her masters in criminal justice and wrote her thesis on a gun question. She relied heavily on a study done by a group of Harvard types.

After I read the paper I looked up some of the criticism of that study and found some real issues with it. She had just taken the study pretty much at it's word since it was new and the academics hadn't had time to publish much criticism.

Bottomline as you said; context is everything and the results may not support the premise.

I won't quote a study unless I can point to it and show the conclusions match my stated premise. Of course, I could still be wrong :)

TuppyFinn

October 12, 2008, 03:17 PM

Well, given that there are about 400,000 robberies, and that only around 1000 murders occur as the result of robberies, compliance seems to give a pretty good result.

David, I would just like to point out that although the murder rate may be 1 in 400, you're not including the wounded. I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that they would be considerable. If 19,000 victims were also stabbed, shot, or beaten, but they don't die, that would make the odds of violence more like 1 in 20.

I really like Kathy's summation of the issue.

TF

bds32

October 13, 2008, 07:28 AM

I like the Lance Thomas school of thought. He is the LA watch shop owner who defeated some five or six armed robbers in four separate incidents in a two year time frame. He was more afraid of being a victim then of dying. He refused to surrender the decision of his fate to a worthless scumbag trying to steal watches and money. Truly inspirational.

Glenn E. Meyer

October 13, 2008, 09:34 AM

As far as studies - like I said before - use Google scholar and you can get many of the original articles or go to the library - rather than pecking at each other. So go do that rather than say blah, blah, blah about studies. If someone cites a study that you don't like - go look it up.

The basic OP question is flawed - it wants a probabilistic prediction but if you really understand stat - you know that such aren't predictive of what actually to do. It is only info about a range of possibilities.

IMHO, sometimes the question is asked so one can posture about one's attitude.

Undestand the possible branches, choose what outcomes are important and train for them. Very simple.

BillCA

October 13, 2008, 12:00 PM

The OP's question is vague enough that no single answer can suffice to cover every situation.

PAX - you summed up some of the information very well. There are times when you have nothing to lose by resisting.

I see it this way...
Someone is threatening my life with a weapon in order to obtain what they want. They have to tell me what they want - money, watch, car, etc.

Once you submit to their demands, you remain uninjured only at the criminal's whim. Having seen thugs get outraged that their take is only $10 and severely beat people for not having money, I don't want to stake my life on his "good graces".

My problem with the advice "just give them what they want" boils down to what if what they want is my life? As PAX said, for women it could mean a long, painful experience regardless of the outcome.

Each event is unique. The attitude of the criminal, your location, size & force disparity, the availability of EMS or police and the demands of the criminal all play some part in the decision.

The bottom line is that we have to use our brains to evaluate the situation and determine if resistance is appropriate or not. Getting sandbagged by 3 thugs with guns intent on your Rolex and wallet may not be the right time to resist if you are unarmed. But like one of my officer-survival instructors once said, if it looks like you're going to get hurt or die, do something, do anything. At least you'll have a 50-50 chance of winning.

David Armstrong

October 13, 2008, 12:14 PM

I know you think I'm just being argumentative, but these are questions that must be addressed in order to put the results of these studies into context.
Of course you are being argumentative, John, as we have just been through this. I believe I gave you a list of sources last time. Let me ask--have you read any of them? I doubt it, or you wouldn't keep trying this nonsense. I'll quote my fellow academician at arms, Glenn, on the subject:
"As far as studies - like I said before - use Google scholar and you can get many of the original articles or go to the library - rather than pecking at each other. So go do that rather than say blah, blah, blah about studies. If someone cites a study that you don't like - go look it up."

David Armstrong

October 13, 2008, 12:17 PM

David, I would just like to point out that although the murder rate may be 1 in 400, you're not including the wounded. I don't know the numbers, but my guess is that they would be considerable. If 19,000 victims were also stabbed, shot, or beaten, but they don't die, that would make the odds of violence more like 1 in 20.
The OP specifically asked "I have heard resisting is more likely to keep you alive and comliance will get you killed. Is this true?" which is pretty restrictive, and does not include other violence.

pax

October 13, 2008, 12:54 PM

David, the problem is, you didn't cite "a study" on this thread. You referred to "studies," plural, nebulous, implying that those who wonder about your sources should locate and peruse multiple volumes of material that may (or may not) speak directly to the question at hand.

For the sake of us following along at home, could you cite just one single study that speaks directly to this? Please?

Thanks.

pax

David Armstrong

October 13, 2008, 02:46 PM

David, the problem is, you didn't cite "a study" on this thread.
No, but I did cite on the other thread and for John to now pop up and ask for cites again is argumentative, IMO. That is particularly apparent, IMO, as nowhere do we see John making the same request of Crosshair when he says, "I've seen other studies that said, on average, that ANY resistance tended to result in less overall rate of injury." Why this great concern with only one side or party needing to provide cites? For the record, I don't think Crosshair needs to provide cites for his claim. If I wonder about it, I'll look up the material myself.
For the sake of us following along at home, could you cite just one single study that speaks directly to this?
No, as no study (AFAIK) speaks directly to this. Many studies, multiple volumes of material, that is how one learns about this stuff. You want to see about some of the problems with Klecks work? Try Cook and Ludwig's report to the National Institute of Justice, 1997, summarized in the Research in Brief "Guns In America: National Survey on Private ownership and Use of Firearms." You want research on why criminals use violence in robberies and such? Read Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth “Crimes of Convenience” 1996. Want some comparisons of the level of violence and injury during robberies? Go through Lance K. Stell's “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring, 2004. Then you can put those, plus dozens of others, together to make a fairly definitive statement, such as
"Yes, but there are also those studies that say when you resist, the severity of the injury goes up even though you are less likely to be injured. Then you get to toss in those that indicate resistance on any level decreases the likelihood of completion but increases the chance of injury. Or, as in the Kleck research you used, the fact that Kleck is using armed resistance against unarmed or lesser armed BGs in the equation, which might not be so good when the BG is also armed with a firearm, and so on."

Tennessee Gentleman

October 13, 2008, 06:04 PM

As far as studies - like I said before - use Google scholar and you can get many of the original articles or go to the library - rather than pecking at each other. So go do that rather than say blah, blah, blah about studies. If someone cites a study that you don't like - go look it up.

Glenn, the problem with that is that someone can say ANYTHING and then challenge those who disagree to "go look it up".

I realize that some of you on here may be academicians but you know, so what, this isn't a classroom and if you want to be taken seriously then we dumb folk need to know where it is coming from with the 100 words or less variety. That is the nature of these boards. Of course, you may refuse and I can throw the BS flag too.

I for one would like to know what these studies say and don't have time to read hundreds of pages of dry formulae. Just give me the cliff notes version in shirtsleeve English and I'll be happy.

I do like reading your posts:)

pax

October 13, 2008, 08:53 PM

No, as no study (AFAIK) speaks directly to this.

Thank you -- that's what I needed to know.

Did anyone address the question of whether victim injuries tend to happen before or after the intended victim begins to resist?

pax

JohnKSa

October 14, 2008, 01:12 AM

Did anyone address the question of whether victim injuries tend to happen before or after the intended victim begins to resist?That's a very good question. Offhand, I recall reading several incidents where the victim began resisting only after being injured. A recent Ayoob file covered a case where a photographer was shot in the head before he offered resistance. He was eventually able to overcome his attacker using his own handgun. It would be interesting to see if there are any studies that break out the injuries that way.Try Cook and Ludwig's report to the National Institute of Justice, 1997, summarized in the Research in Brief "Guns In America: National Survey on Private ownership and Use of Firearms." You want research on why criminals use violence in robberies and such? Read Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth “Crimes of Convenience” 1996. Want some comparisons of the level of violence and injury during robberies? Go through Lance K. Stell's “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring, 2004. Then you can put those, plus dozens of others, together...

Cook & Ludwig are widely noted for having an anti-gun bias--among other things they've suggested that statistics support the gun manufacturers lawsuits. It's not surprising that they would cast firearm usage in a negative light. That's not to say that their research should be dismissed, only that it needs to be carefully considered given the authors' bias.

I managed to find the "Crimes of Convenience" article you're using to support your view. I see that it contains the results of interviews with convicted robbers indicating that they advised compliance to avoid injury. I can certainly see why a criminal would advise compliance...

There is also this somewhat vague comment: "Armed clerks are more likely to be hurt if the robber already has the draw on them." I would read this to mean that drawing against a drawn gun is more likely to result in your injury than drawing against a robber that does not have a gun drawn. That seems pretty reasonable, but it doesn't address whether or not that's less likely to result in injury than compliance would.

In fact the article also says: "A majority of the robbers said some criminals truly enjoy hurting people." and "A number of inmates, as well as guards and wardens, said that prisoners over age thirty are afraid of many of the younger convicts because of their disrespect for human life. These same prisoners concluded that gratuitous violence is more likely to be a tool of the younger population." That seems to indicate that there's a good chance of being hurt simply because the criminal (particularly a young criminal) wishes to hurt someone.

To really answer the question one would need to know which is more common, the "criminal who truly enjoys hurting people" or being injured while resisting the crime using a firearm. The article doesn't provide that information.

The article also includes a quote that says resistance increases the chance of being killed. The quote comes from a work by Franklin E. Zimring and James Zuehl, noted anti-gun writers. Zimring has been known to "doctor" his statistics by omitting relevant categories from his research to support his views. The result in one case was a figure that under-represented the incidence of lawful self-defense by a factor of 27.

Furthermore the quoted statistics from the Zimring & Zuehl work "Victim Injury and Death in Urban Robbery: A Chicago Study" do not differentiate between armed or unarmed resistance. Grouping unarmed resistance together with armed resistance is going to skew the result as Kleck's data clearly shows. In addition the stats do not address the issue of whether the resistance began before or after the robber began the attempt to injure/kill the victim. As pointed out above, in some cases the victim doesn't resist until the robber turns violent.

Not only are these statistics from Z & Z the product of biased researchers but even so they do not provide sufficient information to support the contention that compliance is statistically better than resisting with a firearm against a criminal armed with a firearm.

I don't think that it's wise to use the opinions and "research results" of noted anti-gunners to support a strategy of non-compliance.

Double Naught Spy

October 14, 2008, 04:53 AM

Back around 2002, there was a documentary on Discover that noted FBI stats saying that compliance worked about 87% of the time. Of course, compliance worked in those cases where murder and rape were not the goals of the attacker. The data focussed on robberies. In about 13% of the cases where folks complied, they still got harmed or killed.

So compliance isn't a bad strategy...so long as you know in advance what the bad guy is going to do (and you can't believe what he tells you, so you have to be psychic).

I wholeheartedly believe in complying so long as it is advantageous to my situation and not complying when it isn't.

Often, these discussions are very bipolar, like most of this one, where the options are comply or resist in some sort of confrontational manner. There is a third option in many situations, flight.

Glenn E. Meyer

October 14, 2008, 10:13 AM

I wholeheartedly believe in complying so long as it is advantageous to my situation and not complying when it isn't.

That's about all there is to this argument. Well stated. Of course, Double N - we can discuss one's situation - and that devolves into motivation and goals and off we go again.

Mine is a reasonable chance to take an action to preserve me and mine.

We are just going in circles now.

pax

October 14, 2008, 10:15 AM

Often, these discussions are very bipolar, like most of this one, where the options are comply or resist in some sort of confrontational manner. There is a third option in many situations, flight.

Or a fourth, resist in a non-confrontational manner (eg, talk your way out of it, de-escalate, verbal judo...)

pax

Double Naught Spy

October 14, 2008, 11:28 AM

Or some combination of 1,2, and 4?
http://www.tv.com/video/15055/dances-with-wolves?o=tv&tag=show_summary;video;thumb

Of course, clip is not TC (tactically correct) and probably has some legal issues...

Tennessee Gentleman

October 14, 2008, 12:38 PM

Mine is a reasonable chance to take an action to preserve me and mine. We are just going in circles now.

I think what some may want to discuss is the criteria for making that decision but maybe that is another thread. Kathy gave some good ones before.

David Armstrong

October 14, 2008, 01:29 PM

Did anyone address the question of whether victim injuries tend to happen before or after the intended victim begins to resist?
Again, not directly, but general review of what the BGs themselvs say is that they tend to avoid violence as long as the victim is compliant.

David Armstrong

October 14, 2008, 01:53 PM

I don't think that it's wise to use the opinions and "research results" of noted anti-gunners to support a strategy of non-compliance.
Sigh. And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time. If you don't like the results or disagree with the findings, then just talk about how the researchers themselves are bad. Yet I don't see you using the same set of standards for those "research results" that you agree with, even though they are from noted pro-gunners. Do you think it's wise to use the opinions and "research results" from noted pr-gunners to support a strategy of gun use? Now that the hypocrisy has been fully exposed, can we get back to discussing the issues without this silly "cite your study" talk? It's not going to matter either way, and tends to distract from the issue at hand.

I think that's the main difference between many academics and many others. The academics tend to hold both sides up to the same standards and recognize that both sides have biases and issues For example, in our previous discussion, I pointed out that the Kleck info was somewhat deceptive just as the "43 times more likely" stuff of Zimring was.

So please, from this point forward, don't ask for anymore sources from me unless you agree to read them and accept or reject them on the same criteria you use for those that support your personal position.

That seems to indicate that there's a good chance of being hurt simply because the criminal (particularly a young criminal) wishes to hurt someone.
It does no such thing. It indicates there is a chance of being hurt, and the chance is higher with younger criminals. It indicates nothing about how good the chance is.

do not differentiate between armed or unarmed resistance. Grouping unarmed resistance together with armed resistance is going to skew the result as Kleck's data clearly shows.
You mean just like Kleck did when he did not differentiate between unarmed and armed BGs? Or BGs armed with guns and those armed with other instruments?

Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance, as Double Naught Spy pointed out. There is a reason virtually every LE agency tells its officers to comply during armed robberies as the default option. For most crimes and in most sitauations, compliance is the way to bet. That doesn't mean you don't hedge your bets or change your strategy when a new card comes up. But the smart money is going to bet on compliance to start the game.

BillCA

October 14, 2008, 09:06 PM

The problem I have with the doctrine of compliance is that it makes a good sound bite, but makes for a lousy strategy.

Too many people buy into this doctrine as the sole strategy for every event. Survivors are often shocked and angry about their injuries, saying "I did just what they asked, just what you're supposed to do!"

The problem, of course, is that the criminals make up their own rules as they go. Sure, many will be satisfied to get your wallet or the contents of the register. But a significant number will not be satisfied. Some get "drunk" on the power they suddenly have over people and may get violent. Others are predisposed to violence and use it for their own gain, not caring about the injuries they inflict.

As PAX eloquently stated, there are limits to compliance. Being told to kneel down, being told to get into a car, letting yourself be led into a vault/freezer/back-room are all bad signs. When doing nothing is likely to get you killed, then doing anything is likely to increase your odds for survival.

As potential victims, our problem is that we are not clairvoyant. We cannot predict what our opponent intends to do. He may be content to get a wallet, even with only $5 or $10. But he may also decide that you deserve a beating for not being worth robbing.

The best policy may be to comply initially, but be prepared to use lethal force at the first sign that your opponent has decided that your compliance isn't enough.

grymster2007

October 14, 2008, 09:50 PM

There’s no pat answer to this and individual circumstances should dictate behavior. Just remember there are no guarantees. Know your weaknesses, your strengths and be a quick study in assessing same for your attacker. Try and understand the attacker’s motivation. If it’s clear they simply want your money; give it to them and walk away alive. If instinct tells you they want more; might be time to formulate another plan.

I find the concept of compliance with an armed assailant roughly akin to street fighting. Each fight is different, each opponent different. Success (survival) may sometimes be found in compliance (this guy’s beating me down but good and I have no chance other than to stop resisting and that may be just what he’s looking for) or, instinct tells you he will beat you to death, so while you feign compliance, you look to exploit some opportunity (there are always opportunities) and you roll the dice to turn the tables. What have you to lose? Just be sure to try and leverage your strengths, while exploiting their weaknesses.

Circumstances dictate exceptions, but for the most part I don’t think a female should comply with going anywhere with an attacker. Kick, bite, pull hair, whatever it takes, but you’re probably better off ending the event where you are. Might be better to be shot to death than suffer untold torture at the hands of a sicko.

JohnKSa

October 15, 2008, 01:06 AM

And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time.I must admit that your earlier reticence to provide citations makes a lot more sense in light of this comment. It's an interesting perspective--"I don't want to cite my source because someone might demonstrate that the source is flawed."

I guess that makes sense if your goal is solely to win the argument. If, on the other hand, the goal is to provide sound advice based on hard evidence then it's hardly a waste of time to actually examine and discuss the evidence.If you don't like the results or disagree with the findings, then just talk about how the researchers themselves are bad.Again, this seems to be spoken from the standpoint of someone whose main motivation is to win an argument. If the goal is to inform then it's very important to understand the source of the "information" being used. An anti-gun researcher is unlikely to provide data that directly contradicts his views--and even if he tries to be objective it's likely that the results are still going to be somewhat skewed. As I pointed out in my last post, it doesn't mean you dismiss the study results, only that you take their source into account. That makes it all the more important to study the study, as it were, to make sure there are no hidden surprises like the under-representation I mentioned.

It makes it more important to actually see the actual data rather than just the hashed over conclusions provided by the "researcher".Yet I don't see you using the same set of standards for those "research results" that you agree with, even though they are from noted pro-gunners.I made no secret of my sources and if anyone here doesn't know that Kleck is considered pro-gun then it would greatly surprise me. I set exactly the same standards for my sources as for yours--the difference is that because Kleck provides hard numbers instead of just hashed over paraphrases or summaries it makes it possible to make rational assessments of his data, just as you have demonstrated.You mean just like Kleck did when he did not differentiate between unarmed and armed BGs? Or BGs armed with guns and those armed with other instruments?Exactly, I hoped you would point that out--it's ironic that you did so in a post where you accused me of setting a double standard.

Since it's clear that you understand the concept (of unarmed vs armed) when applied to Kleck's data it's a bit disturbing that you cited an article that makes exactly the same failure to differentiate between the two categories but you chose not to point out the problem in this case because the researcher supported your position. Again, that seems to indicate that winning the argument takes precedent over providing information to allow people to make their own informed decisions.Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance, as Double Naught Spy pointed out.I believe you will agree that, as quoted, the data indicates that while complying is likely to get you out of the situation uninjured, it does not indicate that compliance is the BEST strategy. In the situations covered, compliance works 87% of the time but the point is that if there's a strategy that is more likely to get you out uninjured (for example, one that works 93% of the time) then that's a better strategy. Not to say that compliance is a bad strategy since it clearly works most of the time, just that perhaps there's a better one that will work even more often.

Again, that's exactly why I think it's important to see the actual data.

Just to be clear, I agree that a person needs to evaluate the particular situation and determine a reasonable strategy based on the circumstances realizing that as the circumstances change the strategy may need to change too. It would be ridiculous to advise someone always to resist violent crime just as it is to advise someone always to comply with an armed criminal. In either case, depending on the situation, that could be exactly the wrong response.

Double Naught Spy

October 15, 2008, 06:23 AM

Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance, as Double Naught Spy pointed out.

The FBI data are NOT pro-compliance. They aren't anti-compliance. They are just data in which a pattern was observed. That pattern is an interpretation in which a value as been assigned. You are calling it "pro-compliance." It depends on your view.

Not addressed by the statistic I cited (87% success in compliance) is that every situation IS mutually exclusive and you have no way of knowing if, and assuming the pattern holds, you will fall into the 13% or the 87%. For me, a 13% chance is a pretty high chance for getting harmed. That is why I said I would only comply so long as it is beneficial to me. If I had a 13% chance for something beneficial, such as the lottery, I would play EVERYDAY.

David Armstrong

October 15, 2008, 11:01 AM

New_Pollution1086

October 15, 2008, 11:11 AM

i think (like most of you) it is purely dependent on the situation. If I had a ccw and a gun asked for my wallet with his gun already out i might just toss him my wallet and ask him to leave. if i feel the wallet is not all he wants, the gun comes out.

T

David Armstrong

October 15, 2008, 12:17 PM

It's an interesting perspective--"I don't want to cite my source because someone might demonstrate that the source is flawed."That is an interesting perspective. What is also quite interesting is that it has nothing to do with anything I have said.
If, on the other hand, the goal is to provide sound advice based on hard evidence then it's hardly a waste of time to actually examine and discuss the evidence.
But it is a waste of time if the other party is unwilling to examine the evidence, or if the other party is going to use different standards for the evidence based on whether or not they agree with the points being made.
Again, this seems to be spoken from the standpoint of someone whose main motivation is to win an argument.
Well, I guess we can play mind-reader and start ascribing motives and such to people, or we can discuss the issues themselves. I know which I prefer. Of course, anytime one wants to know another's motives they can just ask. Or perhaps it is easier to ascribe motives based on imagination than on reality.
It makes it more important to actually see the actual data rather than just the hashed over conclusions provided by the "researcher".
I agree. So, when you have actually read the material suggested and looked at the information, get back with me and we'll discuss it. Until you have done so, however, it is rather pointless for you (or anyone, myself included) to try to address the subject from a position of knowledge or understanding.
I made no secret of my sources and if anyone here doesn't know that Kleck is considered pro-gun then it would greatly surprise me.
Just as I would be surprised if anyone who is familiar with the research doesn't know the biases of most of the parties in the game. If they don't, then perhaps they need to study things a bit more so the discussion can be conducted on a more reasoned and less emotional level. But again, if you think that Klecks's work is OK to use as evidence given his bias you should agree that others are OK even given their bias.
the difference is that because Kleck provides hard numbers instead of just hashed over paraphrases or summaries it makes it possible to make rational assessments of his data, just as you have demonstrated.
And when there are rational assessments that indicate severe flaws in the conclusions being offered, it is important to point out those flaws.
Since it's clear that you understand the concept (of unarmed vs armed) when applied to Kleck's data it's a bit disturbing that you cited an article that makes exactly the same failure to differentiate between the two categories but you chose not to point out the problem in this case because the researcher supported your position.
You might note that I suggested that people go and read the article(s) itself to learn more about whatever is being discussed in that article. If they do that they can note all of these issues. Again, it seems somewhat hypocritical to me for you to suggest I should have a duty to do something that you have not done yourself in the same situation. Ummm, you didn't point out the failure to differentiate in Kleck's work and discuss why that makes it suspect in the context it was being used, did you?? Or did I just miss it? Whether or not the research supports my position is irrelevant to me when looking at various studies. I'm the one that keeps suggesting folks read a lot of different material on the subject and be good consumers of research, as opposed to looking at one summary of one study that supports the position you already have.
I believe you will agree that, as quoted, the data indicates that while complying is likely to get you out of the situation uninjured, it does not indicate that compliance is the BEST strategy.
Just as I have never said compliance is the BEST strategy. I have said compliance is the best initial strategy and should be the default position. I have always said the best strategy is the one that will allow the greatest retention of resources for you. Don't understand why that gets folks so excited.
Not to say that compliance is a bad strategy since it clearly works most of the time,
And if it works most of the time that should be the primary strategy. That is why virtually every LE agency instructs their officers to use it as the primary strategy.
just that perhaps there's a better one that will work even more often.
If you would care to cite a study that indicates that I'll be glad to look at it. Personally, I've been doing research in this area for a long time and have never found anything to suggest that, at least as it relates to robbery.

Hondo11

October 15, 2008, 12:26 PM

Please explain the part about "every LE agency instructs their officers to use compliance as the primary strategy." I'm confused as I have never heard of that.

David Armstrong

October 15, 2008, 12:42 PM

Please explain the part about "every LE agency instructs their officers to use compliance as the primary strategy." I'm confused as I have never heard of that.
It was virtually every, not every, as I am sure there are some that don't, even though I've not run across them. The typical LE agency instructions for off-duty officers in armed robberies is to observe and not take action unless they feel that someone's life is in danger or grave injury will result or there are some other special conditions. The reasoning is that they don't want the officer to escalate the situation or make it worse.

Hondo11

October 15, 2008, 01:46 PM

Okay. I thought you were saying that if an officer himself/herself was being robbed, their policy was that compliance was the primary course of action. I misunderstood.

Do you think that it's possible that the policy of which you speak is primarily (or at least heavily) motivated by liability mitigation and not necessarily because the admins believe that compliance is the safest course of action?

Personally, I have never seen that in an agency's general orders. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I never saw it in the major metro area in which I worked when I was LE. The only policies that I have seen that are remotely close to what you're talking about is the one guiding off-duty officers who witness a crime in progress. That's nowhere near a policy instructing off-duty officer to use compliance as the primary course of action.

To clarify... I think you are using an apple to make a case for oranges. A policy guiding off-duty officers regarding intervening in a crime can't be used to bolster an argument for "compliance". "Not intervening" is NOT the same thing as "compliance"...especially not in the context of this thread.

Intervening would be an off-duty officer who witnesses a crime happening to OTHER PEOPLE. For the same person to "comply", the crime would have to be happening to THE OFF-DUTY OFFICER. And if the crime is happening to HIM, then departmental policy doesn't apply as he is acting in the defense of his "private" person...in the capacity of any other Joe on the street.

They are two different things. Altogether different. Using one to bolster the other is lazy and cheap in my opinion.

Double Naught Spy

October 15, 2008, 04:26 PM

The FBI data are NOT pro-compliance. They aren't anti-compliance. They are just data in which a pattern was observed.

We will disagree. When someone points out that compliance works the huge majority of the time, it tends to indicate compliance works. That is pro- enough for me, although I do recognize and agree that it should not be considered as advocating that something be done, only that a favorable result occurs most of the time.

Yes, but you are assigning a value to an interpretation. Data are just data, nothing more. Whether or not you agree with it is moot. What you are failing to realize is that YOU have assigned the pro-compliance value to the data.

If we take the data as a pattern that continues to work today, then knowing that 1 in every 8 robbery type events is going to result in the compliant person being harmed or killed is not a very good safety margin, is it?

Yes, compliance works most of the time, unless the bad guys are just plain wanting to hurt you or just decide on a whim to hurt you. Then compliance sucks.

In the statistical realm, how do you know if you are going to be the 1 of 8 or one of the 7 or 8?

Funny thing about compliance working so well. The reason why it works so well much of the time is that the bad guys often have no intent on hurting people in the first place. So this gives the false impression that compliance is a much better thing than maybe it really is. There are a goodly number of "armed robberies" where the guns are fake, unloaded, or otherwise not functional. There are a goodly number of bank robberies where the gun is just stated to exist in a note, along with other threats such as bombs or chemical agents (that turn out to not exist at all).

What isn't going to happen is to have a statistic on the number of crimes where the robbers intend and have the ability to use violence on non-compliant people and look at the number of times people are or are not hurt during those robberies. That sort of data would be much more useful on determining the success of compliance and non-compliance.

David Armstrong

October 15, 2008, 04:41 PM

I thought you were saying that if an officer himself/herself was being robbed, their policy was that compliance was the primary course of action. I misunderstood.
If you are referencing a personal mugging, yes, I've seen a fair number that do suggest cooperate, but I was thinking more along the lines of store/business type robbery. Thanks for pointing out there are other aspects.
Do you think that it's possible that the policy of which you speak is primarily (or at least heavily) motivated by liability mitigation and not necessarily because the admins believe that compliance is the safest course of action?
It's possible, but I tend to doubt that as a major motive. After all, they do suggest intervention/action when it appears there is significant danger to life and limb. Most that I have talked to say it is a safety issue, both for the officer and the citizens involved, GG and BG. No need to start a gunfight when you don't have to.
The only policies that I have seen that are remotely close to what you're talking about is the one guiding off-duty officers who witness a crime in progress.
And what was that policy for off-duty officers?
Personally, I have never seen that in an agency's general orders. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I never saw it in the major metro area in which I worked when I was LE.
In another life that was an area in which I did a lot of consulting work, and I've seen some form of it many, many times. Off-duty, out of uniform, don't get involved, don't try to make an arrest, don't do anything to escalate the violence.
A policy guiding off-duty officers regarding intervening in a crime can't be used to bolster an argument for "compliance". "Not intervening" is NOT the same thing as "compliance"...especially not in the context of this thread.
We'll disagree. Is the officer working off-duty as a store employee? Is the officer a customer in the store? The point is that the police says don't make it worse, go along until/unless it goes beyond the simple armed robbery stage. Whether you call that non-intervention or compliance, it works out much the same.
And if the crime is happening to HIM, then departmental policy doesn't apply as he is acting in the defense of his "private" person.
Sorry, but if there is a policy regarding the action it does apply to him in his private person role. That is the beauty of policy...it usually gets to apply any time the policy says it applies.
They are two different things. Altogether different. Using one to bolster the other is lazy and cheap in my opinion.
They can be and often are the same thing. Exactly the same. Trying to say otherwise is stupid and ignorant in my opinion. Now, shall we continue to toss around insults based on opinion or get back to discussing the issue?

Hondo11

October 15, 2008, 05:09 PM

Apple:

Officer is off-duty and as he pulls into the bank parking lot, he sees what he believes to be a robbery going down. He is not affected directly by the threat/crime/criminal. The policy you're referring to (the one that I HAVE seen) usually directs officers not to intervene. Ie: Don't try to catch the guy, don't get in your personal vehicle and chase the guy, don't go into the store/bank and try to shoot it out. Don't make arrests for DWI while in your personal vehicle and off duty, etc, etc. DON'T INTERVENE. (Unless necessary to protect human life)

***This would be the "intervention" scenario.

Orange:

Officer is off-duty and is going to a movie with his wife. As they park their car, 2 POSs approach them a demand their money. I will not believe for an instant unless you SHOW that SPECIFIC policy, that any department has policy which states that THIS off-duty officer, in THIS situation, must consider compliance as the primary option.

It wouldn't matter in this case anyway. The guy is an off-duty officer, yes. By occupation. But he is not an off-duty officer in any other way. THIS situation is between 2 criminals and a MAN (just a citizen) and his wife.

***This would be the "compliance vs. non-compliance" scenario.

"Intervening vs. Not Intervening" is NOT the same as "Compliance vs. Non-Compliance." It's absurd for you to try to make them one and the same. They are fundamentaly different.

It's late and I have an early morning, so I'll end on that. And no insult intended. You've made your academic prowess well known to everyone in several different boards. I just expect better than an "Apple + Orange = Banana" argument.

David Armstrong

October 15, 2008, 05:11 PM

Yes, but you are assigning a value to an interpretation. Data are just data, nothing more.
Yes, and when the data suggest that something works 87% of the time I would suggest that is fairly "pro" whatever we are discussing. In this case we are discussing whether compliance is more likely to get you killed than resisting. 87% of the time compliance works in this context. Sounds pretty "pro" to me. You may say it doesn't matter, but the odds say otherwise.
If we take the data as a pattern that continues to work today, then knowing that 1 in every 8 robbery type events is going to result in the compliant person being harmed or killed is not a very good safety margin, is it?

Depends. What is the likelihoood of getting injured or killed without compliance? How many of the 1 in 8 result in injury as opposed to death, and what level of injury are we looking at.
In the statistical realm, how do you know if you are going to be the 1 of 8 or one of the 7 or 8?
You don't. Just like you don't know if you will be one of the hundreds of folks involved in a car wreck today or one of the thousands that don't have a wreck. But do you start out the day based on the common or the unusual?
The reason why it works so well much of the time is that the bad guys often have no intent on hurting people in the first place. So this gives the false impression that compliance is a much better thing than maybe it really is.
Not really. If it works most of the time, it works most of the time. Nothing false about that impression.
There are a goodly number of "armed robberies" where the guns are fake, unloaded, or otherwise not functional. There are a goodly number of bank robberies where the gun is just stated to exist in a note, along with other threats such as bombs or chemical agents (that turn out to not exist at all).
And since there is no danger at all, then it becomes a null game. Compliance results in no injury of any significance.
What isn't going to happen is to have a statistic on the number of crimes where the robbers intend and have the ability to use violence on non-compliant people and look at the number of times people are or are not hurt during those robberies. That sort of data would be much more useful on determining the success of compliance and non-compliance.
Maybe not stats, but we do have a fair body of research on that, some of which was mentioned in other discussions on this. We do have plenty of info that says the BGs tend to want compliance and if they get it no violence is used. If violence is planned, it tends to come at the start of the event.

Look folks, do what you want. If you want to start a blazing gunfight when there is no need, go ahead. Maybe the dark sky will turn blue, the little birdies will start to sing, women will throw themselves at your feet, the public will lavish you with praise, the Mayor will give you the key to the city and a lifetime pension. Maybe the bad guy will faint at the mere thought of your great prowess and fighting ability, and maybe, if you shoot, you will never miss and the BG will be instantly neutralized. Maybe.
If you want you can play the odds and cooperate. If things go well, great, no problem. If they start going bad, you can escalate then. But once you start the shooting you can't go back.
If you just can't face the thought of "deflated wiener syndrome" you can talk with Glenn:D!

nobody_special

October 15, 2008, 05:22 PM

Do you think that it's possible that the policy of which you speak is primarily (or at least heavily) motivated by liability mitigation and not necessarily because the admins believe that compliance is the safest course of action?
It's possible, but I tend to doubt that as a major motive. After all, they do suggest intervention/action when it appears there is significant danger to life and limb. Most that I have talked to say it is a safety issue, both for the officer and the citizens involved, GG and BG. No need to start a gunfight when you don't have to.
Suggesting intervention when it appears there is significant danger of bodily harm may also be due to liability concerns... for example, if a convenience store is robbed, the clerk is killed, and an off-duty officer is present but takes no action, I imagine more than a few pointed questions may be asked...

I must agree that the data you've shown do not suggest to me that compliance is the best strategy. A 13% chance of injury is quite high. In order to demonstrate that compliance is a good strategy, you need to show that the chance of serious injury is significantly higher to people who forcefully resist (via firearm).

These statistics should exist but I haven't seen them.

David Armstrong

October 15, 2008, 05:28 PM

will not believe for an instant unless you SHOW that SPECIFIC policy,
Sigh, I guess you got me. I can't show you a SPECIFIC policy that says "When you are off-duty and going to a movie with your wife, if approached by 2 POSs demanding money that you must consider compliance as the primary option." Policies aren't written that way, and you should know that.
"Intervening vs. Not Intervening" is NOT the same as "Compliance vs. Non-Compliance." It's absurd for you to try to make them one and the same. They are fundamentaly different.
No. They can be fundamentally different, but they can also be fundamentally alike. Much depends on the context in which you are using them and the situation under discussion. For example:

Apple:
Officer is off-duty and working in a convenience store for extra cash. A BG enters the store and proceeds to rob it. The BG also demands all the customers put their money on the counter. Officer does what the BG says.
This is compliance. This is also non-intervention.
Also Apple:
Officer is off-duty and goes into convenience store to buy a drink. While at the counter paying for the drink a BG comes in and proceeds to rob it. The BG also demands the customers put their money on the counter. The officer does so.
This is compliance. This is also non-intervention.

And no insult intended.
Then none shall be taken.

David Armstrong

October 15, 2008, 08:03 PM

A 13% chance of injury is quite high.
Not nearly as high as an 87% chance that you won't get injured.
In order to demonstrate that compliance is a good strategy, you need to show that the chance of serious injury is significantly higher to people who forcefully resist (via firearm).
That's a whole different thread. As for your reasoning, no, you don't need to discuss the chance of serious injury during resistance in order to demonstrate that compliance is a good strategy. Compliance is a good strategy because it works in the great majority of the time and still leaves most options open for you to use if it doesn't work.

From what many are saying, it seems that it would be a good idea to not use a parachute when jumping from a plane because sometimes it doesn't work and you fall to your death. Or not use your seatbelts in the car because some people have died when they couldn't get the belt unfastened. Very strange.

Wagonman

October 15, 2008, 09:40 PM

http://www.tv.com/video/15055/dances-with-wolves?o=tv&tag=show_summary;v

nobody_special

October 15, 2008, 11:02 PM

As for your reasoning, no, you don't need to discuss the chance of serious injury during resistance in order to demonstrate that compliance is a good strategy.

Bzzt, wrong... you must discuss the chance of serious injury, and compare it to the chance of serious injury when other actions are taken. With just the one statistic, you are completely unable to draw any conclusions. For all you know, compliance (being 13% likely to result in injury) may be the action which is most likely to cause injury.

Now, I'm not saying that's true... I'm just saying that you haven't proven your case, in fact you haven't even provided good evidence to back it up.

From what many are saying, it seems that it would be a good idea to not use a parachute when jumping from a plane because sometimes it doesn't work and you fall to your death. Or not use your seatbelts in the car because some people have died when they couldn't get the belt unfastened. Very strange.

Not strange at all, because numerous studies show (for example) that people who jump out of airplanes without a parachute have a very high chance of expiring messily, whereas the chance is much lower for who have parachutes. You must compare the two probabilities in order to draw any conclusion; however, you're arguing a conclusion from just one statistic here.

JohnKSa

October 15, 2008, 11:41 PM

But it is a waste of time if the other party is unwilling to examine the evidence...Come on now. You're upset because I DID examine your "evidence", not because I'm unwilling to.Ummm, you didn't point out the failure to differentiate in Kleck's work and discuss why that makes it suspect in the context it was being used, did you??To be frank, David, I hadn't ever considered that aspect of Kleck's work before you brought it up. That's why I was so interested in seeing the supporting data that you claimed addressed the shortcoming.

You, on the other hand, clearly have thought about that issue and yet chose to make a point of it when it suited your argument and ignore it when it didn't. It's ironic that you're still accusing me of having a double-standard.And if it works most of the time that should be the primary strategy.I think there's some confusion about what these statistics mean.

Let's say we're interviewing crime victims and we have a pool of 300 victims to study. In our hypothetical study it turns out that 100 of those people chose to comply and 87 of them remained uninjured. Another 100 chose to resist using a wet noodle while shouting nursery rhymes in Swahili and 51 of them remained uninjured. The final 100 chose to resist with a firearm and 93 of them remained uninjured.

Since the wet noodle/Swahili nursery rhyme works most of the time (51% of the time), by your standard we can stop looking at the data. Since it works most of the time it should be the primary strategy.

In fact, it turns out that in our hypothetical study ALL of the three strategies work MOST of the time. Clearly ALL of them can't be the primary strategy.

The fact that something works most of the time does NOT indicate that it is the best strategy or that it should be the primary strategy. One must also examine the other available strategies to see if they work MORE often. In the hypothetical study above resistance with a firearm is the best strategy since it works 93% of the time vs compliance which works 87% of the time or the wet noodle/Swahili nursery rhyme method which works 51% of the time.

Perhaps now you understand why I feel it's so important to see the study data.

BillCA

October 16, 2008, 01:03 AM

One point that seems to be missed in all this discussion about what methodology or strategy "works" is this...

To me, a strategy "works" if you are not robbed and you do not sustain any serious injury requiring a hospital visit.

It's one thing to say compliance "works" -- but you now are out the $80 in your wallet, your ID, credit cards and other documents. Your actual cost may be much higher, especially if you become a victim of ID theft.

It's quite different if your strategy really works to the extent that you are uninjured and you still have your valuables. Said strategy works best if your opponent has fled the scene without forcing you to cause him injury. If you are forced to injure him, then the strategy still worked, but it may be a Phyrric victory by the time predominantly anti-gun civil authorities are finally satisfied you were the victim.

Sigh. And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time. If you don't like the results or disagree with the findings, then just talk about how the researchers themselves are bad. Yet I don't see you using the same set of standards for those "research results" that you agree with, even though they are from noted pro-gunners. Do you think it's wise to use the opinions and "research results" from noted pr-gunners to support a strategy of gun use? Now that the hypocrisy has been fully exposed, can we get back to discussing the issues without this silly "cite your study" talk? It's not going to matter either way, and tends to distract from the issue at hand.

I think it overbroad to claim that "the hypocrisy" is fully exposed.

Experience shows that when flaws are uncovered in studies by Lott, Kleck, et al, they are usually highly technical in nature -- e.g. not having a variable to account for economic changes or failing to control for other legal changes. On the other hand, peer reviewed studies from the anti-gun side reveal purposeful exclusive choices when selecting data (Kellerman, Cook, Ludwig, Bogus) - aka "cherry picking", serious flaws in their data model (Bogus, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, Wintemute), basing conclusions on non-correlative data (Kellerman, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, Wintemute) and omitting relevant facts or other studies (most).

Then, of course, we have a whole set of so-called "researchers" who publish anti-gun articles and who refuse to release their data for peer review. The now infamous Michael Bellesiles comes to mind, as does David Hemenway and his NEJM articles.

So, when it comes to studies by certain "researchers", the results of those studies must be considered with a jaundiced eye until profession peer-reviews are available. They've earned it.

David Armstrong

October 16, 2008, 10:32 AM

Bzzt, wrong... you must discuss the chance of serious injury, and compare it to the chance of serious injury when other actions are taken. With just the one statistic, you are completely unable to draw any conclusions.
Bzzzt...double wrong. You are able to draw a very good conclusion. Compliance works 87% of the time.
Now, I'm not saying that's true... I'm just saying that you haven't proven your case, in fact you haven't even provided good evidence to back it up.
Of course not. That is my point. Evidence you disagree with is never good evidence, evidence that supports your belief is always good evidence. To which I'll add the question...have you read the evidence I suggested might be a start? Have you done like Glenn suggest and done a Google Scholar search and read the professional literature in the field?
You must compare the two probabilities in order to draw any conclusion; however, you're arguing a conclusion from just one statistic here.

There is a very good conclusion to be drawn from this and most other evidence, llike it or not...compliance usually works. It works quite well. If you want to get beyond that go for it, but that is still a pretty solid conclusion.

David Armstrong

October 16, 2008, 11:09 AM

Come on now. You're upset because I DID examine your "evidence", not because I'm unwilling to.
Come on now. I'm not upset at all, but let's be honest---you haven't read the material I suggested. In fact looking at what you posted it seems yo only read one article. I'm glad that people examine the evidence, I wish they would do more of it. I wish more would also examine it with an open mind.
You, on the other hand, clearly have thought about that issue and yet chose to make a point of it when it suited your argument and ignore it when it didn't.
I don't think I ignored it at all. In case it wasn't clear: NO bit of data should be considered as a stand-alone proof when there is conflicting data. The same standards should be used on ALL studies. What is problematic in one study should be considered problematic in another study if used the same way.
Since the wet noodle/Swahili nursery rhyme works most of the time (51% of the time), by your standard we can stop looking at the data.
No. Nowhere have I even come close to suggesting that one should EVER stop looking at the data. I always suggest looking at all the data, if for no other reason it might help you understand the one piece of data in relationship to the larger pool of information.
Since it works most of the time it should be the primary strategy.

Again, no. Whether it works most of the time is certainly one factor in deciding the primary strategy, but it is not the only factor. To stick with your numbers, I would not suggest as a primary strategy something that worked 51% of the time if it also guaranteed catastrophic failure anytime it did not work because it prevented any modification or change in response to changing conditions. I might prefer something that only works 30% of the time but allow a follow-up response that would also work 30% of the time. It's the difference between "what single option is the best bet" and "what strategy gives me the greatest chance of winning in the end." Compliance gives you the greatest chance of avoiding injury AND leaves other options open should the situation change.
The fact that something works most of the time does NOT indicate that it is the best strategy or that it should be the primary strategy. One must also examine the other available strategies to see if they work MORE often.
And when one looks at all of the available evidence regarding other strategies, at least as it relates to robbery, the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that compliance is the best initial strategy if your concern is to minimize your loss of resources.
Perhaps now you understand why I feel it's so important to see the study data.
And perhaps you understand why I feel it is so important to see all those things that go into the study besides just the data.

Tennessee Gentleman

October 16, 2008, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by David Armstrong:

For most crimes and in most sitauations, compliance is the way to bet.

Originally posted by David Armstrong:

Just as I have never said compliance is the BEST strategy.

This is just too funny.:D

David Armstrong

October 16, 2008, 11:24 AM

I think it overbroad to claim that "the hypocrisy" is fully exposed.
We'll disagree. When someone asks for studies, then subjects them to a standard of proof that they do not require of they studies they like, it is hypocritical, IMO.
On the other hand, peer reviewed studies from the anti-gun side reveal purposeful exclusive choices when selecting data (Kellerman, Cook, Ludwig, Bogus) - aka "cherry picking", serious flaws in their data model (Bogus, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, Wintemute), basing conclusions on non-correlative data (Kellerman, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, Wintemute) and omitting relevant facts or other studies (most).
While I tend to be rather Libertarian-style pro-gun philosophically, it seems both sides have engaged in more than a little questionable behavior of various types, and we could certainly trade lists. Of course, then we could get into discussing which peer reviews were good and bad, which reviewers had known biases, and all that stuff. And in their defense, many (on both sides) have seen their findings distorted and twisted to provide "proof" of something the study was never designed to do. Klecks's "fight back" findings are a good example. Yes, fighting back with a gun works to reduce injury during a robbery. That does not mean "getting into a gunfight with a robber who also has a gun tends to reduce injury." The data he used didn't control for that and he doesn't offer that as a conclusion. But a lot of folks present it that way.

nobody_special

October 16, 2008, 01:09 PM

Bzzzt...double wrong. You are able to draw a very good conclusion. Compliance works 87% of the time.
First, that's not a conclusion, that's a statistic. Second, that's not the conclusion you are advocating:
compliance is the best initial strategy and should be the default position
To demonstrate that compliance is the "best initial strategy" and "default position," you need to show that it's better than other strategies. You haven't done that. The fact that it works 87% of the time doesn't matter, if other initial strategies work even more often.

David Armstrong

October 16, 2008, 03:56 PM

First, that's not a conclusion, that's a statistic.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the fact that there are other forms of statistics than just predictive stats.
Second, that's not the conclusion you are advocating:
I'm not advocating any conclusion. I'm not sure if it is even possible to advocate a conclusion?? I am advocating one use established data to help them decide what response will cause them the least amount of loss of their resources.
To demonstrate that compliance is the "best initial strategy" and "default position," you need to show that it's better than other strategies. You haven't done that. The fact that it works 87% of the time doesn't matter, if other initial strategies work even more often.
Fine. If you can find a response that the FBI says works (recognizing Bill's excellent point that the concept of "works" can be interpreted in different ways) more than 87% of the time, let us know. When you do that then we can discuss if there is anything better than that.

nobody_special

October 16, 2008, 05:19 PM

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the fact that there are other forms of statistics than just predictive stats.
As a self-professed academic, I'd expect you to understand the difference between data and analysis. Compliance being 87% likely to result in a favorable outcome (no injury) is a statistic; a fact. It says nothing about whether or not compliance is the best option, because there is no information about the likelihood of injury due to other actions. If you present a situation where I'm 13% likely to be injured if I comply, frankly I'd start asking about alternatives, because that does not sound good to me.
I'm not advocating any conclusion.
Well, sometimes you are, and sometimes you aren't... often in the same post. For example, in post #47 (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3082314&postcount=47):
Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance.... There is a reason virtually every LE agency tells its officers to comply during armed robberies as the default option. For most crimes and in most sitauations, compliance is the way to bet.... the smart money is going to bet on compliance to start the game.
In post #52 (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3083518&postcount=52), regarding compliance:
I said it is the best bet
As Tennesee Gentleman pointed out, you're hedging that in Post #54: (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3083620&postcount=54)
Just as I have never said compliance is the BEST strategy. I have said compliance is the best initial strategy and should be the default position.
This is where I have a problem. See, in post #8 you said:
...compliance seems to give a pretty good result.
And that's fine, if you think a 13% chance of injury is good. But when you say it is the best initial strategy, the best bet you're drawing a conclusion that it is better than any alternative option... and you haven't presented evidence to back up that conclusion.

If you can find a response that the FBI says works (recognizing Bill's excellent point that the concept of "works" can be interpreted in different ways) more than 87% of the time, let us know. When you do that then we can discuss if there is anything better than that.
You're the one making a claim here... you need to back it up.

To make an extreme example (and a somewhat obscure reference to Firefly), if I could kill someone with my brain (:D), then compliance would likely not be my best initial choice. IOW, if I had some way to take them by surprise, violent resistance may be an option that results in my being injured less than 13% of the time.

If the criminals who rob people use an unloaded or non-functional weapon 85% of the time, then it's quite likely that immediate, violent resistance will lead to a better outcome than compliance. (I pulled that number out of my hat... not saying this is the case, just demonstrating that the 87% compliance statistic does not imply that compliance is the best initial option.)

I personally tend to agree with Pax's analysis (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3076760&postcount=21), and Dwight55 and Glenn E. Meyer's posts from the first page. I think you're in agreement with that. But the claim that compliance is the "best initial strategy" is, so far, unsubstantiated, as you essentially admitted in post #37 (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3081003&postcount=37).

David Armstrong

October 16, 2008, 07:09 PM

Compliance being 87% likely to result in a favorable outcome (no injury) is a statistic; a fact.
Yes. That is exactly what I said. I think you combined two separate sentences to form a relationship that was not intended, but I see how you got there. Idea #1: You are able to draw a conclusion with one stat. Idea #2: 87% is a stat. I agree, the way I phrased it seemed quite clear to me but could be construed more than one way.
Well, sometimes you are, and sometimes you aren't
Again, I don't think one can advocate conclusions. I believe what I advocate is quite clear.
In post #52, regarding compliance:
OK...and...?
As Tennesee Gentleman pointed out, you're hedging that in Post #54

I prefer not to exchange posts with people who advocate acting in a dishonorable or dishonest manner, or those who consistently distort and/or make-up things about what another person has said. Tennessee Gentleman is on my ignore list, so I can't address what he posted.
But when you say it is the best initial strategy, the best bet you're drawing a conclusion that it is better than any alternative option... and you haven't presented evidence to back up that conclusion.
Again, if there is an alternative that gives better results, please show it to me. There is no obligation on my part to look up every possible alternative. If you disagree with my conclusion you certainly may discuss why you feel the conclusion is in error, but to simply say "you are wrong becuase there might be something out that nobody has found yet" is not only poor reasoning, it violates some of the basic rules regarding research analysis.
You're the one making a claim here... you need to back it up.

Ummm, I've backed up my claim. I've provided numerous sources that support with that claim. The fact that I have not investigated if it is possible that carrying around in our pockets little green men from Mars who can read minds and carry vaporizer guns would do a better job doesn't mean the claim is not supported. You are now making a claim that there is something better out there that I have missed. It is up to you to support that claim. I do find it interesting, BTW, that in all this nobody has come up with anything along those lines.
But the claim that compliance is the "best initial strategy" is, so far, unsubstantiated, as you essentially admitted in post #37.
Having just read Post #37, I see nothing there even close to that "admission".

KLRANGL

October 16, 2008, 11:29 PM

Why Have Robberies Become Less Frequent but More Violent?

http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ewn005v1

Article from last April. Quote: "Although the incidence of robbery has declined sharply since the early 1990s, the proportion of robberies resulting in victim injury has increased and the rate of victim resistance has remained relatively stable."

Anyone wana buy it and find out more for us? :p

To be honest, as smart as you guys are, im getting kinda sick of the bickering about statistic interpretations. Wana just shake hands and get to the point where you actually try and help us simple folk make good decisions? Maybe get some actually quotes from actually studies in there or something?

David: You mentioned a list of studies you recommended reading? For the life of me I cant find it...

JohnKSa

October 17, 2008, 12:22 AM

Again, if there is an alternative that gives better results, please show it to me. There is no obligation on my part to look up every possible alternative.There is an obligation imposed by the rules of logic. The person who makes the claim is obligated to provide the proof for that claim.

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."

But then, I know that's already obvious to you.You are now making a claim that there is something better out there that I have missed. It is up to you to support that claim.Unfortunately you have missed the point. nobody special did NOT claim that there was a better alternative. The claim has been made that compliance should be the primary strategy, the default strategy, that it's the best initial strategy and further the claim has been made that there is overwhelming evidence to support that statement.

YOU made those claims.

No, you don't have to look up every possible alternative, but the comparison here isn't between compliance and every possible alternative, it is between compliance and resistance, specifically resistance with a firearm.Nowhere have I even come close to suggesting that one should EVER stop looking at the data. That's disengenous, you know that's twisting what I said. You made a very clear statement that if something worked most of the time that it should be the primary strategy. I demonstrated with a very simple example how that statement was false. Instead of responding to the meat of the example which proved the fallacy in your claim, you chose to try to twist a single sentence around and respond to that instead. Understandable, perhaps, but disengenous nonetheless.And when one looks at all of the available evidence regarding other strategies, at least as it relates to robbery, the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that compliance is the best initial strategy if your concern is to minimize your loss of resources.Besides the fact that you have not provided evidence that supports this claim, it's totally irrelevant since I have made absolutely no mention of minimizing "loss of resources". I have been exclusively concerned with minimizing the probability of injury to the victim.And if it works most of the time that should be the primary strategy....by your standard we can stop looking at the data. Since it works most of the time it should be the primary strategy.Again, no. Whether it works most of the time is certainly one factor in deciding the primary strategy, but it is not the only factor.We agree, but only because you contradicted yourself. :D

The main factor in determining the primary strategy should be which strategy offers the BEST chance for remaining uninjured. It's certainly not enough to say that "if it works most of the time that should be the primary strategy".

To know which is best, one must compare the statistics. I'd love to do just that but they do not appear to be forthcoming ...We will disagree. When someone points out that compliance works the huge majority of the time... That is pro- enough for me...Unfortunately disagreement in this situation means that you are simply incorrect. It's not a matter of a difference of opinion, the facts are clear and they do not support your position. The FBI data provides the probability of remaining uninjured given the studied range of crimes in which the victim complies. It is neither pro- nor anti-compliant, it merely provides a probability based on statistical data.

If one had other data to compare to the quoted FBI data then one could form a conclusion that would be either pro- neutral- or anti-compliant based on results of the various strategies. In the absence of further data it is not possible to do so.

If YOU wished to form a strategy of compliance based on the FBI data, you could certainly do so with the assurance that strategy would work most of the time. That is quite reasonable, however if you go farther and claim that strategy should be the primary strategy or that it's the best initial strategy you would need additional data to support those claims. The quoted FBI data doesn't tell you which is best or which should be primary because it doesn't offer a comparison between compliance and other strategies.From what many are saying, it seems that it would be a good idea to not use a parachute when jumping from a plane because sometimes it doesn't work and you fall to your death. Or not use your seatbelts in the car because some people have died when they couldn't get the belt unfastened. Very strange.What's strange is how you could possibly make such an assessment.

People are not saying to jump without a parachute, what people are saying is that if jumping from a plane with a parachute offers a 13% chance of injury then they would be interested in seeing if there were another way to get to the ground that offered LESS chance of injury.

I find it distressing and confusing that it is necessary to explain how to interpret basic statistics to a person who claims to have an academic background that involves a good bit of interaction with statistical data.

Tennessee Gentleman

October 17, 2008, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by David Armstrong:

I prefer not to exchange posts with people who advocate acting in a dishonorable or dishonest manner, or those who consistently distort and/or make-up things about what another person has said. Tennessee Gentleman is on my ignore list, so I can't address what he posted.

I have reported these types of comments from David Armstrong twice to the mods and since there appears to be no action from them I feel I must respond to this slander.

Never on this forum have I advocated "dishonest" or "dishonorable" actions nor do I make up things that another person says. These are false and slanderous comments and personal attacks against me. As all of you can see, in my post #71 I simply quoted what David had said earlier where he contradicted himself.

Some people (like myself) come on this forum to learn new things, test out our ideas with others and converse with those who love firearms.

Others, unfortunately like David Armstrong, come on the forum to show everyone how smart they are and are abusive towards those who disagree with them by calling them "dishonest" or by implying they are stupid. He is not here to learn anything or engage in dialogue. He comes on here to "tell" us how we should think about things he feels he is the undisputed expert on. If one of us dare to question him he responds with personal attack.

When asked repeatedly by those like Johnska to provide backup to his claims of fact, his response is "go look it up yourself".

David appears to have some knowledge and background in the fields we discuss but that knowledge is counteracted by arrogance, pomposity, and a failure to admit when he might be wrong or back up his claims. David is simply coming on here to tell all of us what the real deal is and if we question him we are either idiots or dishonest.

Although David appears to have some knowledge of criminology, I would recommend highly to others that you take his statements with a large amount of salt and BS antidote.

Sorry to go on this way but I cannot stand by and have my character slandered by an arrogant, pompous person who doesn't know me from Adam. I regret that the mods continue to let him post here.

ZeSpectre

October 17, 2008, 10:12 AM

Okay, we've been arguing statistics (and once we got into that I stopped detail reading and skimmed).

I'm going to give you another viewpoint. I walked a beat for just a smidgen over three years in a good sized city. I was in a few situations and witnessed the outcome of even more. From this "on the street" experience my overwhelming endorsement?
If you can flee, do so quick-like-the-bunny!
But if you can't then you NEED TO FIGHT!

Use every dirty, nasty, noisy, evil, brutal tactic you can think of and if you haven't paused RIGHT NOW to think of a few then you need to go to this link (http://www.selfdefenseinstructor.com/top-10-dirty-fighting-techniques/) and maybe this link (http://www.ehow.com/how_2151182_fight-dirty.html)

In post #51 PAX says...
I will not go anywhere at gunpoint. Everyone knows that getting to "Crime Scene #2" is bad, but there's something else to consider, too: If the bad guy wants me to go somewhere else, it's because he will be able to do something to me there that he is unwilling or unable to do to me right here, right now. Therefore no matter how bad the tactical situation seems right here and now, right here and now is the absolute best chance to fight back I will ever have and I intend to use it.

She has this one 100% right. Going along was known as "the DEATH ride" since the badguy takes you where he wants so he can do what he wants for as long as he wants. You -might- not die, but there are things that are far more horrible than just death (http://www.newser.com/story/38358/kidnap-victim-it-was-worse-than-death.html). Try to imagine that, kidnapped and abused/tortured EVERY DAY for FOUR YEARS! I KNOW with no doubt in my mind that I'd rather fight and risk being injured or killed than go through that.

David Armstrong

October 17, 2008, 11:57 AM

David: You mentioned a list of studies you recommended reading? For the life of me I cant find it.
Here are some I mentioned in this thread. I've pointed out others in other threads on this type of topic that you should be able find with a search engine.
>>Many studies, multiple volumes of material, that is how one learns about this stuff. You want to see about some of the problems with Klecks work? Try Cook and Ludwig's report to the National Institute of Justice, 1997, summarized in the Research in Brief "Guns In America: National Survey on Private ownership and Use of Firearms." You want research on why criminals use violence in robberies and such? Read Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth “Crimes of Convenience” 1996. Want some comparisons of the level of violence and injury during robberies? Go through Lance K. Stell's “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring, 2004.<<
You can also do like Glenn said earlier on, and use Google scholar search for some guidance.

David Armstrong

October 17, 2008, 12:27 PM

There is an obligation imposed by the rules of logic. The person who makes the claim is obligated to provide the proof for that claim.
But once proof is provided there is no obligation to provide more proof, or to continue examining all possible alternative solutions. Those who challenge the proof have the obligation to provide the evidence for the challenge. Again, I note that so far nobody has provided anything that indicates any alternative that works better than compliance as the primary responce.
YOU made those claims.
Yes, and I provided support for those claims. Support which, AFAIK, nobody has countered with anything other than some version of "well, there may be something else out there so what you say doesn't count." Again, John, how about holding yourself and some other folk up to the same standard you seem to think I should meet?
I demonstrated with a very simple example how that statement was false.
No John, you didn't, and I explained why. An explanation that you have failed to show any problems with, BTW. See, there is a "proof" obligation on your part also that you keep ignoring, and that is when you assert a claim you have an obligation to prove it, and when you offer an example that is shown to be defective you then have an obligation to show why the argument against it is not valid.
Besides the fact that you have not provided evidence that supports this claim,....
Once again, John, you are making a dishonest statement. Evidence has been provided and that evidence does support the claim. You may not like the evidence but to say it has not been provided is just plain false.
I have been exclusively concerned with minimizing the probability of injury to the victim.
That's nice, but that is only one small part of the discussion. I tend to look at overall loss, of which injury is a part, sometimes a small part. That is why one needs to look at the total picture.
We agree, but only because you contradicted yourself.
Now it appears you have trouble understanding English. "Should" is not the same as "shall."
Unfortunately disagreement in this situation means that you are simply incorrect. It's not a matter of a difference of opinion, the facts are clear and they do not support your position.
No John, you are simply incorrect. It is not a mattter of a difference of opinion, the facts are clear and they do not support your position.
It is neither pro- nor anti-compliant, it merely provides a probability based on statistical data.
And that probability indicates that compliance will lead to no physical injury 87% of the time.
If one had other data to compare to the quoted FBI data then one could form a conclusion that would be either pro- neutral- or anti-compliant based on results of the various strategies. In the absence of further data it is not possible to do so.
But there is other data. I know you keep denying it, but if you'd quit arguing for the sake of argument and go do a little reading and research you might actually learn something about this so you could argue from a position of knowledge.
I find it distressing and confusing that it is necessary to explain how to interpret basic statistics to a person who claims to have an academic background that involves a good bit of interaction with statistical data.
Perhaps you will share with us your statistical background, John, so we can compare our knowledge, skills, and experience in the fields of research design, statistics, and analysis. I find it distressing and confusing that it is necessary to explain how to interpret basic statistics to a person over and over when that person obviously has no idea what they are talking about but refuses to admit it.
But that is what happens every time we get into this sort of stuff, just as I pointed out last time. We have now spent a large amount of time discussing who should have to prove what, whether evidence should be looked at or not, what different stats mean, whether one interpretation of a stat is right or another one is right, and all this stuff that has little or no bearing on the OP. I'll also point out that despite many requests for cites to the claims I have made you apparently still have not read them when given, with one possible exception.

Corn dodger

October 17, 2008, 03:44 PM

Maybe I can make this a bit more simple. John Wayne said in one of his movies, "Then load six if your insides tells ya." All this data and stats and what not. What we say we are going to do, or think we are going to do, may not be what we do at all when we are dropped in the frying pan and the heat is turned up. Unless any of you folks have been in a real "jam" then it's all theory. My bet is that none of you will be doing the math on percentages when your looking down the bore of a .45. Maybe, just maybe, listening to what "your insides tells ya," to do and exactly when to do it, might be best. It might be that you have a lot more....or a lot less courage than you ever thought.

vox rationis

October 17, 2008, 05:18 PM

Absolute compliance might statistically be associated with not being harmed 87% of the time, but the problem is that one's life then becomes a commodity that is completely controlled by the criminal, to do with as he pleases.

And I'd say that it is up to each individual to decide whether or not he/she sees such a gross violation of one's human rights as acceptable or not.

If one decides to not let the criminal be the sole decision maker regarding their living or dying, then I could see how some may use initial compliance as tactical subterfuge, used to gain the upper hand and, with some luck, neutralize the threat. Much in the way that brilliant and brave Marine did, in the story cited above. May God bless that man as he probably saved quite a few lives that day.

David Armstrong

October 17, 2008, 05:34 PM

Sometimes you just get tired of the nonsense. I’m sure that some here will find fault with these findings, so be it. But the weight of the evidence is pretty clear:

In reference to defense acts in violent crimes: 1/5 of victims who defended themselves with a firearm suffered an injury. 1/2 of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon were injured. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.

Robberies in which the offender attacked without prior threat constituted only 36 percent of robberies, but caused 66% of all serious injuries. Robberies in which the offender did not immediately attack, even though a greater percentage of actual attacks (64% vs. 36%) saw a lower rate of injury and less severe injuries. Victims who defended themselves against offenders armed with guns were more likely to be injured than those who took no actions during the crime. Across all weapon types, the most dangerous actions for victims were attacking, threatening, or resisting the offender. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995.

Even though a weapon, most commonly a firearm, is used in 83% of all carjacking, injury to the victim is rare, with most victim not injured and only 4% suffering serious injury. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999.

JohnKSa

October 18, 2008, 02:08 AM

But there is other data. I know you keep denying it...Come on David, a person who claims to create arguments that hang on the difference in meaning between 'shall' and 'should' certainly understands how the word "if" modifies a following sentence.

So you know that I didn't deny the data existed, because you know that I said that "if it didn't one couldn't make the assessment" I didn't say "since it doesn't one can't make the assessment". The point being, of course, that in order to support your assessment, the other data needed to be forthcoming.

I'm not going to grind through the balance of your "response" unravelling the other similar semantics games contained therein, since they're sufficiently blatant as to be apparent to anyone who takes the time to read carefully.

I will, however, draw the readers' attention, not without some amusement, to the obvious contradiction between your repeated, emphatic, assertions throughout this thread that you have already provided supporting data and your last post in which you finally make an attempt to provide supporting data....the weight of the evidence is pretty clear:

In reference to defense acts in violent crimes: 1/5 of victims who defended themselves with a firearm suffered an injury. 1/2 of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon were injured. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.Great, now that we have some actual study data to work from we can actually get somewhere.

I assume you are intending these statistics to be compared to the 87% figure for compliance that the FBI provides. On the surface, the 80% chance (four fifths chance) for remaining uninjured if you resist violent crime with a firearm seems to indicate that resisting with a firearm is more likely to result in injury than compliance. However, this particular BJS statistic is taken across all violent crime including rape & assault. So those numbers include crimes in which the express intent of the offender is, by definition, to injure the defender whereas the FBI statistics specifically focused on robberies. You yourself have made the point more than once that robbers don't usually want to hurt their victims and offender intent certainly plays a part in the likelihood of a victim to be injured. As if that weren't plain enough, the BJS states that explicitly in the paragraph you appear to have quoted from.

Here's the entire paragraph from the BJS report (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt): "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims' injury outcomes."

Therefore while this is interesting data it can not be directly compared with the FBI statistics that specifically relate to armed robbery to establish that compliance is a better initial/default strategy against armed robbery. Again, it's surprising that, given your background dealing with and interpreting study data & statistics, you didn't see this immediately. Or perhaps you did and were hoping no one else would take note. Either way the result is the same.

Can you provide a link and point out the portion of the BJS report that contains the statistics you're summarizing as "Victims who defended themselves against offenders armed with guns were more likely to be injured than those who took no actions during the crime."? I can't seem to locate the applicable report on the BJS website.

Tennessee Gentleman

October 18, 2008, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

In reference to defense acts in violent crimes: 1/5 of victims who defended themselves with a firearm suffered an injury. 1/2 of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon were injured. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.

Call me crazy but that statistic seems to indicate that if you resist with a firearm then you have a 80% chance of not being injured? That seems like pretty good odds to me to justify resisting if you are armed. Another example of David saying one thing and then showing statistics that say another.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong
But once proof is provided there is no obligation to provide more proof,

Originally Posted by David Armstrong
And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong But there is other data. I know you keep denying it, but if you'd quit arguing for the sake of argument and go do a little reading and research you might actually learn something about this so you could argue from a position of knowledge.

Where is the data? What is the data? If you claim that why not provide a link to it and the specific parts? You base all ofyour arguments on what you claim studies say but will not show the evidence. Your position is :Just take my word for it or go look it up yourself.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Again, I don't think one can advocate conclusions.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong I have said compliance is the best initial strategy and should be the default position....Bzzzt...double wrong. You are able to draw a very good conclusion. Compliance works 87% of the time.

More contradictions.

can we get back to discussing the issues without this silly "cite your study" talk? It's not going to matter either way, and tends to distract from the issue at hand.

And yet in almost every post a study is referred to by David or his conclusion about a study is defended.

Translation: Don't question what I say because it is the truth.