Why and when would you pull the trigger?

[LadySmith]

I would not rely on the mercy of an armed felon. Compliance and a close call...

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...0333/1321/NEWS

Burglar killed; homeowner hurt
Frank X. Mullen ([email protected])
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
September 11, 2007
A Reno man was wounded as he disarmed a burglar in his home and fatally shot the intruder Monday afternoon, police said.
Reno police Sgt. Ray Leal said a resident in the 400 block of Brittany Avenue was confronted by the gunman when he arrived at home about
1:35 p.m. The burglar, a 43-year-old Reno man whose name was withheld, ordered the resident to crawl to the bathroom at the end of the hall and remain there while he resumed the burglary.
After a short time, the burglar placed a gun to the resident's head. The man told police he believed he was about to be shot and turned his head as the gun discharged.
He then jumped to his feet and struggled with the suspect for the gun, sustaining two gunshots to his upper body, but managed to wrestle the gun from the intruder and shoot him.
The resident was treated at Renown Regional Medical Center for non-life-threatening injuries.
"I don't believe the two men knew each other," Leal said at the scene.
Detectives can be reached at 334-2115 or Secret Witness at 322-4900.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Again, this thread is going nowhere. Same old blather based on a refusal to understand the basic issue in favor of heroic posturing.

[Groundhog]

Maybe we like blather! Ever think of that? Huh?! HUH!?

[pax]

Originally Posted by Justme

To some people control is more important than life itself.

I've been watching this thread for a few days and this comment kept niggling at me.

I think it bothered me mostly because it sure seems to me that in some situations, control actually is more important than life itself.

For instance, if there is no doubt at all that you are going to get killed in the end, would you rather

• die quickly and relatively painlessly? or
• die slowly, in agony, while being tortured and watching your entire family be killed just as slowly and just as painfully?

Given those two options, and only those two, which one would you choose? (I'd take card #1 myself; in such a simple case, being able to control the manner of my death would be more important to me than living.)

Of course, life isn't so simple. The BTK killer, for instance, never told people that the above was the choice they were making when they decided whether or not to cooperate with him. Instead, he told them that if they cooperated, they wouldn't get killed. Or that, if they cooperated, he would let their loved ones go. His victims usually believed they had a choice between

• cooperating, staying alive, and saving their loved ones' lives too, or
• not cooperating, and getting killed, plus having their loved ones die.

Given a choice between those two options, anyone in their right mind would cooperate.

But guess what? Psychopaths lie. That's what they do. They are generally really good at lying. The actual choice the BTK killer was offering was a bit more bleak. His victims actually had a choice between

• fighting to escape, and maybe getting killed quickly, or
• not fighting to escape, and definitely getting killed slowly and painfully while watching everyone they loved get killed just as slowly and just as painfully.

Cooperating and surviving was not among the cards BTK put in play.

So the question becomes, how do you know whether you are making a deal with an ordinary, decent criminal or whether you are talking to a twisted, violent psychopath with a sadistic streak?

Answer: you don't. Psychopaths are good at lying. Remember that. There are no guarantees.

If you know the odds, you have a slight advantage when you choose your course of action -- simply because you are more likely to know what realistic possibilities are actually among the cards in play.

For example, if the assailant wants to shove you into his car and take you to the place experts call "Crime Scene #2", you can take it pretty well as a given that you are going to die anyway so you might as well fight back right here and now. No matter how bad your immediate odds appear to be, they aren't going to get any better once he gets you inside his vehicle and away from potential witnesses. Offered the choice between getting in the car or not getting in the car, your actual choice is between getting shot right there with potential witnesses around, or dying a slow death by torture in the woods somewhere. Knowing the odds of survival if you cooperate also lets you know which cards are in play.

As Glenn pointed out, bank robberies traditionally create a fairly low risk of bystanders getting killed. Normally, bank robbers just want to grab and go. So you can probably gamble on cooperation in such a circumstance ... unless the criminal(s) begin tying people up, or shepherding them one by one into a back room, or ratcheting up the violence in some other way. The odds change as soon as the criminals begin putting cards on the table.

However. Keep in mind that in cooperating, you are rarely facing the simple possibilities of

• cooperate and live or
• fight and die.

It isn't quite that simple. Instead, you are actually gambling between

• cooperate and live without injury
• cooperate and live with crippling injury
• cooperate and get killed quickly
• cooperate and get killed slowly, painfully, horribly
• fight and live without injury
• fight and live with crippling injury
• fight and die from a bullet (which is usually a relatively quick death).

Put each of those outcomes on a set of cards and shuffle the deck randomly. Pick a card ...

Which outcome happens once you cooperate is utterly outside of your control.

But if you decide to fight back, you can significantly improve your odds of a good outcome by getting training in both shooting skills and defensive tactics. If you absolutely must fight back, fighting back skillfully creates far better odds than fighting back clumsily.

Get training. Be realistic about your skill level. And be smart enough to know which cards are actually in play and which cards are simply not available.

pax

[Lurper]

Amen Pax!!!
I would only add that for me: I know what I will and can do. I cannot know what the BG can and will do. Therefore I will do what I can based on the situation. No matter what the outcome, I will know that I made the choice and that I decided whether to take a stand or not. I refuse to let someone make that choice for me. If that means control is more important than life, so be it.
Glenn, some of us have BTDT and it has nothing to do with posturing.

[threegun]

Heroic posturing? Failure to understand the issue? Glenn we understand the issue buddy. It isn't rocket science to understand what odds and probabilities are. We are willing to accept the statistical increase in danger. You may not be and thats your business. It isn't heroic posturing its a "going down fighting" mentality. Just don't come on here making it look like those who disagree with you are issue dumb.

[David Armstrong]

Wow... talk about over analyzing things!

Well, I question if it is possible to overanalyze life and death issues with multiple variables, but you don't actually have to do a lot of analysis. It is pretty simple, IMO. If the BG has not already severely harmed you, the odds are that he will not do so given normal situations. If you start shooting at him, however, there is a 100% chance that you will be involved in a gunfight.

When at gunpoint, you must presume the BG will use the gun.

No, not any more than that you must presume he will not use the gun. Again, the odds are that the latter presumption is the more likely, but that is only part of the equation.

To completely capitulate and do nothing means leaving the decision whether you live or die up to the BG.

Agreed, which is why nobody, AFAIK, has suggested you should completely capitualte and do nothing. Thus, I must wonder why so many people in the "shoot the BG" group keep bringing it up.

Countless beatings, homicides and rapes have occurred as the result of a robbery that started off with a simple demand for money.

And countless more robberies have been completed without any physical harm to the victim.

It is their actions, facial expressions, body language and words that will be the most important factors in deciding if/when to employ lethal force.

Agreed again, but that does not mean one should disregard any or all other bits of information that can be of importance to the decision.

[David Armstrong]

They are not hard facts in that you cannot reach into the universe, pull out one sample and say what the outcome will be. You can only say that if he falls within the standard deviation, he is x% likely to do X.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they are facts. Statistics ARE facts, but like all facts you cannot use them for anything you want. You have to use the facts within their appropriate sphere.

So while academically that "knowledge" may be useful, from a practical standpoint it is not (as is so often the case).

We'll have to disagree. It is quite practical. It seems you are arguing that if we cannot identify which driver is intoxicated at any given time we should treat all drivers as if they are intoxicated at all times. I may be misunderstanding the point, and if so apologies in advance.

Additionally, with any given sample each incident involves millions of new variables that weren't involved in the last incident which makes each incident virtually unique.

Sorry, but that is somewhat irrelevant. All incidents are virtually unique. But it is all those unique incidents that provide us with the data to describe most incidents. And many of those unique elements have little bearing on the issue at hand. SOme BGs carry revolvers, some carry autos. But they come together into a grouping of "carrying a gun." Unless there is some difference in use patterns, the type of gun doesn't matter much.

I don't think that in a one on one single incident basis anyone has the luxury of relying on these statistics.

Then I tend to ask what will you rely on? If you are making decisions you have to rely on something. Wouldn't be nice to rely on accurate, factual information that has some relevance to the problem at hand?

It's sort of like what they say about home land security: we only have to be wrong once to have devastating consequences.

So, staying in that same context, we should never allow any airplanes to fly in the U.S. again? Or should we take as much information as we can get to decide what to do?

[David Armstrong]

I would not rely on the mercy of an armed felon.

As mentioned, I'm no t aware of anybody suggesting any such thing, any more than I would rely on iloated news stories to determine the likelihood of things happening.

[Justme]

It's really hard for people to face reality. Many people endow guns with mythical powers and then have a hard time when faced with the fact that they are just tools, and as tools the most important factor is who is using that tool.

A gun does not grant omnipotence and there are situations where use of a gun will cause more harm than good. In fact, and the statistics bear this out, there are more situations where using a gun will make the situation worse than there are situations where gun use will make the situation better. If you know and utilise this information you will have better outcomes, if you ignore this data and think your gun has mystical powers and is the right answer to every question you will have worse outcomes.

Furthermore I think the "death before dishonor" crowd are mentally ill and need help. It can be argued that pain and torture leading up to death is worse than death, but loss of honor being worse than death is just warped, not least of all because honor is impossible to define, with any definition relying greatly on circumstances and culture.

[David Armstrong]

So the question becomes, how do you know whether you are making a deal with an ordinary, decent criminal or whether you are talking to a twisted, violent psychopath with a sadistic streak?

FWIW, that can be asked about anybody, not just criminals. So, should you treat everone as if they were violent psychopaths? Or do you rely on the fact that true psycopaths are quite rare, even in the criminal world?

If you know the odds, you have a slight advantage when you choose your course of action -- simply because you are more likely to know what realistic possibilities are actually among the cards in play.

Great summation of the issue, which many keep missing. Nothing is guaranteed, but you get closer to the guarantee by knowing what the odds are.

[Creature]

A gun does not grant omnipotence and there are situations where use of a gun will cause more harm than good. In fact, and the statistics bear this out, there are more situations where using a gun will make the situation worse than there are situations where gun use will make the situation better. If you know and utilize this information you will have better outcomes, if you ignore this data and think your gun has mystical powers and is the right answer to every question you will have worse outcomes.

+1.
Very eloquently stated.

[threegun]

A gun does not grant omnipotence and there are situations where use of a gun will cause more harm than good. In fact, and the statistics bear this out, there are more situations where using a gun will make the situation worse than there are situations where gun use will make the situation better. If you know and utilize this information you will have better outcomes, if you ignore this data and think your gun has mystical powers and is the right answer to every question you will have worse outcomes.

Justme, Then why carry at all? For the extremely rare occassion in which a gun betters your odds?

[Lurper]

It's really hard for people to face reality. Many people endow guns with mythical powers and then have a hard time when faced with the fact that they are just tools, and as tools the most important factor is who is using that tool.

If you really believe that it is who is using that tool, why do you insist that everyone use it in the same situation you would the same way you would and condemn those who wouldn't?

A gun does not grant omnipotence and there are situations where use of a gun will cause more harm than good. In fact, and the statistics bear this out, there are more situations where using a gun will make the situation worse than there are situations where gun use will make the situation better. If you know and utilise this information you will have better outcomes, if you ignore this data and think your gun has mystical powers and is the right answer to every question you will have worse outcomes.

I'd like to see the data that supports these contentions. Perhaps you could cite said statistics.

We'll have to disagree. It is quite practical. It seems you are arguing that if we cannot identify which driver is intoxicated at any given time we should treat all drivers as if they are intoxicated at all times. I may be misunderstanding the point, and if so apologies in advance.

A better analogy would be that we need to treat all dui drivers like extreme dui's because we cannot tell how inebriated they are. Again, I have no way of knowing where my assailant falls in the sample. One can argue that I have 70% chance of being robbed and surviving without violence, but does that mean if I am in that 30% and he kills me that I am less than 100% dead?

Sorry, but that is somewhat irrelevant. All incidents are virtually unique.

Which is my point. It's easy to say that it's irrelevant when you are not the one involved in the incident. I would argue that the stakes are much higher when it is you involved. Again, there is no way to now the likelihood of the actions taken by your assailant without knowing his past patterns. Therefore, the most applicable information is situational. The only information that is totally relevant is the information you gather at the time the incident happens.

So, staying in that same context, we should never allow any airplanes to fly in the U.S. again? Or should we take as much information as we can get to decide what to do?

No, what we should do is take action to down a hijacked plane in spite of the fact that most hijackings end without violence.

[Lurper]

I just happened to run across this this very afternoon:

Based on nationally representative samples of crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Surveys, victims who use guns for self-protection were less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all. For example, among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% inury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims.

Excerpted from Gun and Self Defense By Gary Kleck Ph.D

[Justme]

Yes Lurper, those stats support the theory that there are indeed situations where a gun is a valuable self defense tool. My point is that sometimes it makes sense to use a gun and sometimes it makes sense to keep it in your pocket, that should not be a controversial statement. The tricky bit is knowing when to draw your weapon and when to leave it in your pocket, or for those who don't own a seecamp or keltec yet in your holster.

The most valuable self defense tool you have is between your ears,. use that first. That's all I'm really saying

[Cremon]

drawing your weapon commits you to using lethal force

Absolutely!

[Cremon]

So the question becomes, how do you know whether you are making a deal with an ordinary, decent criminal or whether you are talking to a twisted, violent psychopath with a sadistic streak?

If he pulls a weapon on me, he is now the most twisted SOB since Jeffrey Dahmer or (fictitious) Hannibal Lector. This guy has just decided my life is worth at MOST whatever I have on me and whether he knows it or not - he just bet his OWN life when he made his final decision to go through with the robbery. Whether or not he gets a chance to retract that bet depends on what happens in that period of time between when he first makes me go to condition red and when I get the opportunity to draw my 4516.

[threegun]

My point is that sometimes it makes sense to use a gun and sometimes it makes sense to keep it in your pocket, that should not be a controversial statement. The tricky bit is knowing when to draw your weapon and when to leave it in your pocket,

All we are saying is let the situation tell you what to do not the odds makers.

[Justme]

When you let the situation evolve and decide what to do based on the details, you are letting the odds, as you know them from past experiences, inform your decision making and ultimately your actions.

The problem is that you might take anecdotal evidence from gun sites like this and apply that instead of applying reality. A person who spends very much time on here could get a wild west or combat zone mentality that is actually very dangerous to have in the real world, since it is based on the paranoid comments of a few people rather than collected facts from the real world.

And make no mistake, the same "control issues" that propel us to spend time getting a CCW permit and concern ourselves with handgun purchases come into play. All I'm saying is to be aware that we have those control issues and don't let them lure us into making foolish decisions.

On a side note, "control issues" really do affect people's lives. Upper middle class white women are perhaps most affected, the theory being that they are used to being in control. In the study of assisted suicide I did upper middle class white women are the group most likely to take end of life matters into their own hands. They are used to being in charge and would rather end their lives on their own terms than wait for health concerns to follow their own course. I think this is the same mentality that would perhaps cause a CCW gun owner to take his chances in a firefight when perhaps it would be wiser to let things unfold on their own.

[threegun]

Justme, For me it is a "I just don't know for sure" thing.

Try this scenario. You are in a room with 3 exit doors. One is locked. Of the other two doors a single bad guy awaits on the other side of one door to shoot it out with you. You can get a key for the locked exit door by pulling the trigger on a 6 shot revolver loaded with one round (Russian Roulette style) while the muzzle is point at your stomach. You can also choose to exit one of the other 2 exit doors.

What do you do and why?

[Lurper]

When you let the situation evolve and decide what to do based on the details, you are letting the odds, as you know them from past experiences, inform your decision making and ultimately your actions.

Absolutely not! When you let the situation evolve, you are making a judgement call based on what you can see, hear, feel and smell AT THAT MOMENT. To let the odds be the sole factor you consider before acting is folly. Sure, you can say that most of the time robberies end w/o violence, but you don't know if your assailant falls into the majority (non-violent) or minority (violent) or transition (from or to violent/non-violent) group and you have no way of ever knowing.

The problem is that you might take anecdotal evidence from gun sites like this and apply that instead of applying reality. A person who spends very much time on here could get a wild west or combat zone mentality that is actually very dangerous to have in the real world, since it is based on the paranoid comments of a few people rather than collected facts from the real world.

You mean "anecdotal" evidence like that from Kleck I cited earlier? In the "real" world, people die. Robbers kill and injure people everyday, regardless of how good or bad someone is, race, religion or gender. That is the real world. When you are robbed, you have two basic choices; comply or resist. You may choose either one, but that choice should be based on what is in front of you at that moment, not some set of statistics from a study put together by some organization who doesn't have a gun pointed at thier heads.

Calling this a "wild west or combat zone metality" is way over the top. By the same token, you could say those who choose to stand their ground in their home rather than retreat (especially a woman) possess the same mentality. Which is pure hogwash of course. As far as the real world goes, some of us do this for a living and have BTDT and while our opinions may differ, those opinions are based on something other than what I hear other people say or read on a forum without checking it out. So to imply that those comments are paranoid ramblings not based on fact is a bit inaccurate and insulting.

[Lurper]

Quote:
drawing your weapon commits you to using lethal force

Absolutely!

What?!?!?!?! Are you trying to say that if I draw my weapon I have to shoot? I'd like to see the rationale for that.

[Justme]

You should never ever draw your gun until you believe that the situation calls for lethal force. Some people disagree with this attitude, I think they are wrong. If I draw a weapon I will shoot, if I shoot I will shoot to stop the threat( as opposed to shooting to kill, in a legal sense the killing is accidental and collateral to the act of stopping the threat).

If you draw a weapon with some misguided mindset that the mere presence of a gun will make all your dreams come true...well I think you are wrong.

[Lurper]

If you draw a weapon with some misguided mindset that the mere presence of a gun will make all your dreams come true...well I think you are wrong.

This in spite of the fact that in only a few thousand of the 2.5 million estimated annual DUG incidents, shots are fired. Seems like statistically the odds overwhelmingly suggest that just producing (or mentioning) you have a gun will end the confrontation. Aren't you going to use those statistics to base your decision when to draw on?

How about the idea that it is smarter to have the gun in your hand when you need it as opposed to having to draw first. You know, like Dennis Tueller demonstrated with his exercise?