active compliance more likely to get you killed?

[David Armstrong]

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]

Why Have Robberies Become Less Frequent but More Violent?

http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...tract/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?

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]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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/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."

But then, I know that's already obvious to you.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

And if it works most of the time that should be the primary strategy.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

...by your standard we can stop looking at the data. Since it works most of the time it should be the primary strategy.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

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.

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]

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]

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 and maybe this link

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

...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: "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]

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.

[garryc]

Being with these scum bags for the last 16 years has taught me one thing. The last thing you want is to be at their mercy.

For example, some years ago a woman was in a local mal parking lot. She was abducted. Apparently she got in a van without making any commotion that would draw attention. She apparently submitted and was taken away. She was found after being raped brutally and repetitively. They tortured her by burning her with cigarettes. They then killed her by inserting a pistol in her vagina and shooting her. That is what you risk by submitting.

As a side note;
The kid that shot her got convicted. He went to Max security at Lucasville. Apparently it did not go well for him, I'll let your imagination take over at that point. He was sent to OSP where he hung himself. I weep with sadness over that (snicker).

[Capt. Charlie]

Enough!

I just got the heads-up from Pax on this one, but even so, I was shocked to see how two senior members took this down to gutter level.

David and TG, I don't normally admonish in public, but this has gone on long enough that other members might believe that this kind of behavior is acceptable at TFL.

It isn't.

It's obvious there's a problem between you two. It won't become TFL's problem. Either take it to PM or learn what the ignore button is for. Do neither and you can kiss your TFL memberships goodbye. Consider this a formal and final warning.

Closed.