Video of robber killed in Pharmacy holdup - One-shot stop? Caliber?

[Playboypenguin]

'll bet if you get hold of the raw data they're using as opposed to their recommendations you'll see that you've misinterpreted their motives.

No, you can take a "worker's safety course" in Oregon (and I know in AL too) that clearly shows the statistics of armed robberies, the percentage that involved resistance, the percentage that did not, and the percentage that did and did not end in the clerk being harmed. It is all pretty clear. Like I said, they do specifically point out situations where you are NOT supposed to co-operate.

It is similar to the "a man demands you keys at gun point " scenariio. The best answer is give him the keys and let him flee. Most gun owners would never say "pull your gun and start firing" because they realize the severe disadvantage they are at tactically and that he is likely to take the car and leave. If the man then says "get in the car" you fight back for all you are worth and take your chances.

[Playboypenguin]

I see. Your "verifiable facts" are now "common knowledge". You got nothing. You made a claim, and when I called you out on it to produce these facts and crime statistics, you come up empty. This is becoming a trend with you.

Naw, you could find that data too if you wanted to...but you chose not to so I would like to see what you can contribute. Please, regale us with your numbers and statistics...or at least where/how you came across the data to support your belief. Add something to the conversation besides dissent.

[Creature]

Nice try. I wont be baited. You made the claim...now back it up with actual verifiable numbers. That's YOUR job, not mine.

[Playboypenguin]

Nice try. I wont be baited. You made the claim...now back it up with actual verifiable numbers. That's YOUR job, not mine.

C'mon, I have never, ever seen you back up a claim. It would be a nice change. let's hear it. I have talked in length (as I often do) and will do so again after you present your side, but it is your turn now. Let's see something besides conjecture.

[doc540]

Good form

So, I gave the perp a 9.3 for form and completing two full gainers, but deducted .7 for not throwing his gun far enough.

btw: that move is called the "OC" or "Oswald Curl"

And if you freeze the frame where the guard first draws his weapon it looks like a flat-topped Glock, and, I'm guessing it was either a .40 or .45 and not a 9mm.

[Creature]

Thanks for proving yet again that your full of bluster and very little fact. Your shift away from the claim you made by asking me to disprove yours is classic PBP tap-dancing.

[Playboypenguin]

Thanks for proving yet again that your full of bluster and very little fact. Your tap dancing away from the claim you made by asking me to disprove yours is classic PBP tap dancing.

Still nothing of substance to add? At least you are consistant.

[JohnKSa]

No, you can take a "worker's safety course" in Oregon (and I know in AL too) that clearly shows the statistics of armed robberies, the percentage that involved resistance, the percentage that did not, and the percentage that did and did not end in the clerk being harmed. It is all pretty clear. Like I said, they do specifically point out situations where you are NOT supposed to co-operate.

That doesn't contradict the results of the statistics I've been quoting.

Compliance IS a better strategy if the victim is UNARMED. That is NOT the case when the victim is armed with a firearm. In the case where the victim resists with a firearm the statistics indicate that his chances for remaining uninjured are better than if he had complied.

[Playboypenguin]

That doesn't contradict the results of the statistics I've been quoting.

it does and it doesn't. If you do not reach for a weapon the perp does not know you have one and your odds of survival are extremely high. In fact the vast majority of people that have been robbed are never injured. I have been robbed more than once. A couple times when working at a Subway in college and while working in a credit union once.

You would have to be able to show statistics on how many times a victim presented a firearm and how many of those events ended in injury of the victim. Those numbers would then have to greatly exceed the percentage of people that just do not get injured without resisting. Also, how many of those instances would have involved no injury without the firearm. Is there a big difference if any?

So if 95% of all robberies do not result in injury to the victim and 94% of robberies where the victim presents a firearm result in no injury to the victim it is still safer to not resist...and vice versa.

It is something that would be worth researching. I would love to see the statistics and see them examined. Your example is a valid hypothesis that can be quantified if someone has the means and desire to do it.

[Creature]

Still nothing of substance to add? At least you are consistant.

Unlike you, I never tried to add "verifiable specifics and facts" to the conversation, just opinion.

Now, how does being a business owner make you an expert on anything again? Especially self-defense and casualty avoidance?

Also, I have been mugged not less than four times while I was growing up in NJ. Each time, I was beaten and injured if for no reason other than to add time for the mugger to get away and ensure that I would not follow or be able to call for help.

[JohnKSa]

You would have to be able to show statistics on how many times a victim presented a firearm and how many of those events ended in injury of the victim.

The statistics specifically address the situation where the victim "RESISTS with a firearm".

In the general case that offers a better chance for remaining uninjured than compliance.

Those numbers would then have to greatly exceed the percentage of people that just do not get injured without resisting.

That is incorrect.

The only thing that the number of cases affects is the margin of error in the resulting conclusions.

In other words, if there were a million cases where a victim complied and with victims remaining uninjured 75% of the time and there were 2000 cases where the victim resisted with a firearm with 83% of the victims remaining uninjured you can still say that the odds favor resistance with a firearm.

The difference is that the compliance figure (75%) has a margin of error that is virtually nil while the the resistance with a firearm figure (83%) may have a margin of error that is a percentage point or two.

[AK103K]

Let's see something besides conjecture.

Isnt it all conjecture until its over?

I think old Andrew Jackson summed it up best......

"Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking...."

[Playboypenguin]

The statistics specifically address the situation where the victim "RESISTS with a firearm".

In the general case that offers a better chance for remaining uninjured than compliance.

I can''t address that scenario statistically since I have never been privy to those numbers. What where the ones you are stating? How do they compare to the fact that the vast majority of all robberies do not end in injury?

We need to work out a proper formula to test the hypothesis. You never know, you might end up with something publishable.

[Playboypenguin]

Unlike you, I never tried to add "verifiable specifics and facts" to the conversation, just opinion.

And I am asking what you are basing that "opinion" upon..reality, fantasy?

[Creature]

And I am asking what you are basing that "opinion" upon..reality, fantasy?

Personal experience. See my last post. Those were robberies that turned into muggings AFTER I was compliant and handed over my valuables.

[Creature]

Still looking for your "exception to the rule" in my case...

Of the four muggings I experienced, loosing two teeth was the lightest injury I received by my merry muggers. Three weeks in the hospital with a broken arm, three broken ribs, two embolisms and fractured skull was the worst.

Tell me again how I should be compliant.

[JohnKSa]

I can''t address that scenario statistically since I have never been privy to those numbers. What where the ones you are stating?

http://www.skepticfiles.org/conspire/gun2doc.htm

Search that page for Kleck.

The statistics are stated in terms of the percentage of victims injured so smaller is better.

Self Defense Method Against Robbery vs Percent Injured
Gun--->17.4%
Other weapon--->22.0%
No resistance--->24.7%
Other measures--->26.5%
Threaten or reason with attacker--->30.7%
Nonviolent resistance and evasion--->34.9%
Knife--->40.3%
Tried to get help or frighten attacker--->48.9%
Physical force--->50.8%

How do they compare to the fact that the vast majority of all robberies do not end in injury?

The numbers show that is true, but give an edge to victims that resist using a firearm.

AGAIN, these statistics do not differentiate between the case where the attacker is armed with a firearm and I'm not aware of any that do. It stands to reason that an armed attacker is more dangerous than an unarmed one, but in the absence of data it's hard to say how much that affects thing over the general situation.

I believe it's safe to say that resisting against an armed attacker increases your chances of being injured, it's just not possible to say if that increase is enough to overcome the 7% advantage of resisting with a firearm vs complying.

[Playboypenguin]

Personal experience. See my last post. Those were robberies that turned into muggings AFTER I was compliant and handed over my valuables.

That does not in anyway contradict what I said. I said there are exceptions but that "usually" you are uninjured if you co-operate. You are trying to say one except is disproving all other data. That is not logical. Like I said before....my gun routinely fires safely when I pull the trigger. A guy next to me at the range had his blow up when he did the same. Does that now make all guns with triggers unsafe?

[Creature]

Well, lets see. Based upon my personal experience, you would be wrong. Since I should base my future reactions upon my past personal experiences, and not upon some conceptual study based solely on statistics where the situations do not exactly match mine, I am 100% sure that the BG is going to hurt me.

If I know my gun is going to blow up if I pull the trigger because I have experience with that gun, I am not going to convince myself that it wont because everyone else's gun probably wont.

[Playboypenguin]

JohnSKA,

One problem with those numbers is it is not dealing solely with "Armed robberies involving the assailant possessing and brandishing a gun." It is including all reported robberies. The number of robberies that result in injuries includes unarmed robbers or robbers armed with a knife where victims are injured during confrontation (whether the robbery was successful or not).

You would have to break down the figure to clearly show how many of the victims that presented a firearm and =survived unharmed did so against an assailant who was pointing a firearm at them and how many of the ones that did get injured did the same thing...and vice versa.

Meaning if there was 100 cases of a victim defending themselves with a firearm and only 17 of them were injured by the assailant, but all 17 where injured when the assailant also had a firearm and the 93 that did not get injured happened when the assailant did not have a firearm you get a different conclusion.

[Milspec]

We carry guns to protect ourselves and others from death or serious harm. We're not police...we don't have vests or backup or snipers on the roof. We're nice people who want to attend our kids' weddings and play with our grandkids. Show poor muzzle discipline and the risk is on you...

Milspec

[JohnKSa]

One problem with those numbers is it is not dealing solely with "Armed robberies involving the assailant possessing and brandishing a gun."

You'll note that I've been careful to point that out.

I mentioned it in my initial post and was in the process of adding a reminder to my last post as you were posting.

You would have to break down the figure to clearly show how many of the victims that presented a firearm and survived unharmed did so against an assailant who was pointing a firearm at them and how many of the ones that did get injured did the same thing...and vice versa.

I would love to have statistics broken out like that. Unfortunately I have not seen any that break out the situations based on how the attacker is armed.

[Playboypenguin]

JohnSKA,

You responded before I added this part...

Meaning if there was 100 cases of a victim defending themselves with a firearm and only 17 of them were injured by the assailant, but all 17 where injured when the assailant also had a firearm and the 93 that did not get injured happened when the assailant did not have a firearm you get a different conclusion.

So you can see where I am going. With all the information it could be very easy to conclude that defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence. We would need all the information and not just parts of it. That is the type of thing the Brady's do.

[Creature]

PBP, didnt you learn in Statistics 101 that once you manipulate the criteria, any statistical analysis can be made to indicate anything you want to advance as "proof". You continually keep trying to refine the criteria of the data sets to such an extent in your quest to question the veracity of John's casual study that anything but a very specific situation would warrant the compliance you are so desperate to advance.

[Playboypenguin]

PBP, didnt you learn in Statistics 101 that once you manipulate the criteria, any statistical analysis can be made to indicate anything you want to advance as "proof". You continually keep trying to refine the criteria of the data sets to such an extent in your quest to question the veracity of John's casual study that anything but a very specific situation would warrant the compliance you are so desperate to advance.

Okay, then "manipulate" the statistics to support a claim that fighting back is the best course of action against an armed assailant.