How do you react?

[alloy]

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

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

[David Armstrong]

Your implication at this point that there's any confusion about what assertion I'm talking about is blatantly disengenuous.

I can only call it like I see it, John. You seem to be confusing the assertions and arguing that supporting evidence for one is irrelevant because it doesn't support the other.

Doing so would be a very good place for you to start.

Getting a copy of the material I cited for you and reading it would be a very good place for you to start. When you have done so, let me know. Until then, your constant arguing that I have not done something that I have done is rather hollow. When you have read the material, get back with me and we'll discuss it.

[JohnKSa]

When you have read the material, get back with me and we'll discuss it.

To date the only quote you've provided doesn't even establish that your source is relevant since the quote doesn't even so much as mention the factor of whether the BG is armed or not. Even we were to ignore the burden of proof issue (and I have no intention of ignoring it) it's ludicrous to suggest that I go off and read a book when you haven't even established its relevance.

You seem to be confusing the assertions and arguing that supporting evidence for one is irrelevant because it doesn't support the other.

Nope, I'm only interested in your supporting the SINGLE assertion that I have asked you about repeatedly (i.e. Data controlled for the factor of a BG armed with a gun shows that my statement based on Kleck's study is misleading.). The other assertion you have tried to introduce as a red herring is of no interest to me.

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

[Brit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Armstrong]

To date the only quote you've provided doesn't even establish that your source is relevant since the quote doesn't even so much as mention the factor of whether the BG is armed or not.

But the material the quote is from does address that, as you would know if you would stop arguing about what the stuff says and go read it to find out what is said. Sorry, John, but I'm not going to post 10 pages of material here. Just not going to happen.

Data controlled for the factor of a BG armed with a gun shows that my statement based on Kleck's study is misleading

OK, John, if you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns, go right ahead. I don't think too many others will follow along, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead. I really don't care. While we are at it, you did not properly source the Kleck material, so I suppose you have not met your own burden of proof.

How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread starts to believe that you don't really have the data?

How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread notices that you have not gone and checked out the information provided to you?

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

[JohnKSa]

Sorry, John, but I'm not going to post 10 pages of material here.

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

You've expended FAR more effort in NOT answering the request than it would have required to answer the request and the longer it goes on, the less reasonable it is for you to pretend that the reason you can't give the data is that you don't want to type stuff into the forum.

OK, John, if you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns, go right ahead.

Does not address the request for the controlled DATA you implied you were using to arrive at your assertion.

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

You could end this by providing the stats from this controlled data showing the difference in injury risk between engaging and armed BG and an unarmed BG vs the injury risk between compliance against an armed BG and an unarmed BG and then providing the cite for your quote. Not 10 pages, only a sentence or two.

I suppose you have not met your own burden of proof.

If you want a link to Kleck's data why didn't you ask. I would have provided it immediately. Do you really need a link or is this just another red herring?

How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread notices that you have not gone and checked out the information provided to you?

As I've mentioned before (even if we ignore the burden of proof issue which I have no intention of doing), you have not even established the relevance of this book you keep trying to get me to read. Doing so would take maybe a sentence or two and would be a VERY good place for you to start.

[David Armstrong]

Strawman.

It's a strawman that you try to claim it a strawman.

If, as you say, this data exists you could have met the request with a few sentences and a cite.

Did that. sorry you don't like it, but it is there. Again, if you'd maybe take a minute to go look at the information we could stop this silliness.

You've expended FAR more effort in NOT answering the request...

It hasn't been any effort at all, but again the request was answered. You don't like the answer that is fine, but the request was answered.

You've expended FAR more effort in NOT answering the request than it would have required to answer the request

Just as you've expended FAR more effort in NOT looking at the source provided than needed.

the less reasonable it is for you to pretend that the reason you can't give the data is that you don't want to type stuff into the forum.

I can do lots of things, John. I usually refuse to be bullied into doing anything.

Does not address the request for the controlled DATA you implied you were using to arrive at your assertion.

So, you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns? Fine, go ahead. I think few will follow you down that path.

You could end this by providing the stats....

Why should I provide you with something you apparently are not willing to look for yourself?

If you want a link to Kleck's data why didn't you ask.

Because I didn't need a link. Unlike you, I did some research myself to include the original source material, which led to the "misleading" comment. I only mentioned it to show that you are demanding others do something that you yourself have apparently not felt it necessary to do. When someone makes a statement like that I tend to give them the courtesy of assuming they are not lying and are quoting what they have learned with a level of accuracy. If I think there is a problem I search out the data, I do the research, then comment on it. Unless we are going to start treating the internet as if it were an academic journal, I think we all need to keep that concept at the forefront.

As I've mentioned before (even if we ignore the burden of proof issue which I have no intention of doing), you have not even established the relevance of this book you keep trying to get me to read.

John, I don't care if you read it or not. I have said it is relevant. Now, you may choose to call me a liar and say it isn't, but until you read it it's pretty obvious that you don't know if it is relevant or not. Here, some more bits of literature that you might want to read if you are going to discuss GG/BG interactions, robbery dynamics, and so on:

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

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

Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988

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

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

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

[JohnKSa]

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

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

At this point you've just about convinced me that the data doesn't exist since you've had eight days to provide it and to date you have not even been able to establish that you know of any sources that contain relevant data.

So, you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns?

I addressed this issue quite clearly in my last post--I don't think it's possible to misunderstand what I said. Subjective comparisons do not answer the question. The question can only be answered with objective data--numbers.

I usually refuse to be bullied into doing anything.

RIDICULOUS! You made the initial assertion (and implication of supporting data) of your own free will. It is the right of any party in a debate to ask for that supporting data once you based your assertion on it and claimed that it existed and it is your responsibility as a participant in this debate to provide it. Demanding that you "do your duty", as it were, is not bullying. Besides, who has to be "bullied" into providing data that supports their arguments? People WANT to do that because it bolsters their arguments and their credibility.

Bottom line?
Just another post that provides no data.

You seem to be laboring under some misapprehensions. Here is reality:

• THIS IS NOT YOUR CLASSROOM, YOU DO NOT GET TO ASSIGN "HOMEWORK" HERE.
• IF YOU MAKE AN ASSERTION AND CLAIM THAT IT'S BASED ON REAL DATA THEN YOU BACK IT UP WITH REAL DATA OR YOU LOSE YOUR CREDIBILITY.
• PROVIDING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AND YOUR RESPONSIBILITY ALONE.

[David Armstrong]

In the time it took you to find & type in all those titles you could have provided the data to support your initial assertion.

Umm, and just how do you know how long that took? It seems you are starting to make a lot of claims that you cannot support, John.

At this point you've just about convinced me that the data doesn't exist since you've had eight days to provide it and to date you have not even been able to establish that you know of any sources that contain relevant data.

As you have thus far refused to look at any of the sources, you can't know if it is relevant or not.

Subjective comparisons do not answer the question.

Sure they can. You might not like the answer, you may not agree with the answer, but they still provide an answer.

It is the right of any party in a debate

I wasn't aware this was a debate. If so, perhaps we should decide what type of debate and what rules to follow in advance??

You made the initial assertion (and implication of supporting data) of your own free will.

Just as you made your initial assertion (and implication of supporting data) of your own free will. I guess the difference is that I accepted the conclusions you offered as being given in good faith and did not start demanding more proof or original sources or all that other nonsense.

Demanding that you "do your duty", as it were, is not bullying.

Not only do you not have the right to demand anything of me, you also do not have the right to decide what my "duty" is. I have answered your questions in a manner that I feel is appropriate. As I've said before, you don't like my answers, feel free to look at the data and provide your own.

Bottom line?
Just another post that provides no data.

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

Here is reality:

Yes, here is reality---you don't get to demand that I answer questions in a format that you approve of. Suggesting you look stuff up yourself is not assigning homework, it is suggesting yo expand your knowledge in an area. Refusing to look at material when it is offered is a far greater loss of credibility than anything else, IMO. I don't insist people do research for me and I don't respect those who insist I do it for them and then try to make an issue of the fact that they don't like that I won't do their work for them.

[JohnKSa]

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

Wrong.

That is not providing supporting data, that is making a homework assignment. "Here, students, go read these books and we'll discuss them tomorrow in class."

I wasn't aware this was a debate. If so, perhaps we should decide what type of debate and what rules to follow in advance??

Now THAT I believe. You've treated this as if this is your classroom. You make a statement claiming that it's backed by hard data and respond to requests for that data by making reading assignments and indicating you'll address the issue when the "students" have completed their work.

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

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-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/c...allacies.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/FOCU...s.htm#shifting
"The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made."

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

[vytoland]

OK boys, now back to the real topic.

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

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What was this thread about anyway? I'm lost

[pax]

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

Thanks for keeping your cool, everyone. Interesting thread!

pax

[Brit]

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

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

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

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

[David Armstrong]

That is not providing supporting data, that is making a homework assignment. "Here, students, go read these books and we'll discuss them tomorrow in class."

And by reading those books one might be able to find and understand the data I'm talking about. I've spent 30 years reading and researching in this area, and I'm not going to scramble to find a particular table or data set every time somebody tells me I have to do so or I'm a liar.

Now THAT I believe.

If you believe that, then why have you been demanding that one party follow cewrtain rules that only you have thought we were using, while nobody else (including yourself) has been held to the same standard?

You've treated this as if this is your classroom.

Again, it seems you are making wild claims with nothinjg to base such claims on. AFAIK, you have never been in one of my classrooms, therefore you have NO IDEA what you are talking about when you say what I would do oi my classroom.

To date you have provided exactly NO DATA that relates whether the BG is armed to the likelihood of injury for a defender who resists with a firearm.

To date I have provided you with SEVEN total sources of information relating to that issue, none of which you have apparently taken the time to examine.

[David Armstrong]

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

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

[pax]

Closed.

Thank you again, everyone.

pax