Quote:
Your contention is that I would be starting the gun fight, not the BG who has drawn his/her firearm and is threatening folks with it. Seriously, are you this confused?
When someone has drawn a firearm and is threatening people with it the fight has already begun. This person is unstable and you're willing to risk life and limb on statistics?
Not me.
|
You are risking the clerks life by shooting when no shots would have been fired otherwise. Sure there is no guarentee that the bad guy won't shoot the clerk. There is supporting data however that indicates this outcome to be very very rare. Given this undeniable information the prudent thing to do is wait.
Knowing the low odds of the bad guy shooting you intervien virtually guaranteeing a shootout. This is simply not wise. It seems to presume that when you open up on the bad guy the clerk would be safer. Problem is that the clerk would only be safer by you opening fire if in fact the bad guy was going to shoot them. This we already know is statistically rare.
So in the vast majority of times you intervien you in fact put the clerk in more danger. As well as yourself.
Example Microgunner stumbles into 100 robberies in progress. 98 of those robberies would have ended without lead in the air. Microgunner opens up on the bad guy everytime. Now 100 percent of the robberies ended with lead in the air. Not very good for the environment nor the clerk, bad guy*, other patrons, or yourself. See the error of your thinking yet?
*not that I give a rats sacks for the scumbag.