How do you react?

[David Armstrong]

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
John, I've done that before in these discussions. If you didn't check them then, why should I dig them back up now for you not to check again?

If I've ever been involved in a discussion with you where you provided a cite/link to the statistics you described I don't recall it.

My apologies to John on this. I was sure we had been through that here on this forum, but I had confused it with another John at another forum. Mea Culpa.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I am a regular listener of Tom Gresham's Guntalk Radio. He does a show called Personal Defense TV. I really like the show and watch it a lot. On one of his latest radio segments he speaks of some force on force training he did for one of his PDTV shows and told us how many times he was "killed" while in these types of scenarios. I think one was a conveinience store holdup and another was a disgruntled employee and Tom was trying to "save" the boss from being shot. He said on his show that he got killed almost EVERY time he tried to intervene. He lived when he ran. Maybe some of you heard his show. It will be on PDTV and I hope I can get it as I don't get the channel he moved to. Maybe it is on his web site guntalk.tv and I will enroll there.

Bottomline, a guy could really get killed doing this and the only advantage IMHO we gun owners would have on the bad guy was surprise. If he didn't know we were armed and he got to looking at something else then maybe if it was up close and personal. But I don't know? I am glad I can carry but I can sure still get killed and it may be my day to go. At least I would have a chance with a gun and none without it.

The OP scenario is a bit too open ended to tell for sure.

[threegun]

I have never been a fan of playing the odds (my luck is not good) especially if being wrong could mean being dead. An obvious exception is already having a gun pointed at me.

I would rather rely on my abilities than the bad guys decision. If I wait until escalation from the bad guy I might not have the opportunity and I certainly won't have the surprise.

[alloy]

"My CWP Instructor, a retired police force veteran with over 25 years of service, told us: "If someone pulls or points a gun, you MUST assume they intend to use it."
The penalty for guessing wrong is too great.
Keltyke

in a smaller situation...on the street or as a shopowner behind my counter, or in my house...i am OK with that. i am also more prepared for that, especially at home or at the shop.
i can understand the same premise about the robber's intent in this particular Waffle incident or similar.

but my actions are hopefully gonna be somewhat different and maybe more measured, depending on the circumstances...for a myriad of reasons, unless perhaps i am the first one the gun is drawn and pointed at. currently thinking more along the lines of Tennessee Gentleman's post. at least for an on-line situation with so many details open.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

If the numbers say that it will reduce injury 99 times out of 100, it is referred to as CAN reduce.

Unfortunately if the numbers say that it will reduce injury 1 time out of 10,000 it is STILL referred to as "CAN reduce".

That is why I keep asking for the data so we can see exactly what it says as opposed to trying to analyze someone's vaguely worded characterization of the data.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

It doesn't work that way. Different studies lead to different finding, various severity levels, and so on. That is why we discuss propensities and likelihoods. We are talking social science research, not mathematics.

If you can't provide the numbers, at least provide the name of the study that contains the numbers (or objectively quantified results, if there are no numbers--though I find that possibility quite unlikely).

Regarding your comment about different studies; to be clear, nothing I've said should be construed to restrict you to providing the results of only a single study. If you know of "different studies" that support your argument then provide them all. I emphasize the word "studies" to make it clear that I'm interested in the study itself, not in a subjectively worded one sentence summary of the study.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

If you want to discuss what I have said, I'll be glad to discuss it.

Ok, let's try this again. You stated that:

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

That has become one of those horribly mis-leading facts, sort of like the antis "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family member" thing. Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher.

Let's see the study results you're referring to that are controlled for the factor of whether or not the BG is armed.

Posting that I should "go look them up" is not reasonable, in fact it is an example of the logical fallacy called the Burden of Proof Fallacy. You brought up this alleged study saying it supported your argument that the fact I quoted based on Kleck's study was "horribly misleading". That means that the burden of proof (as to the existence of the study, its contents and its support of your argument) is on you.

[David Armstrong]

That is why I keep asking for the data so we can see exactly what it says as opposed to trying to analyze someone's vaguely worded characterization of the data.

There is no single source of data. There are dozens of sources of data, all of which measure different things at different times. Figuring out how they all work together and what trends they indicate is the issue.

If you know of "different studies" that support your argument then provide them all.

If you disagree with what I have said, please feel free to provide whatever evidence you think you need to support your disagreement. If you disagree with the conclusions I have posted, feel free to offer conclusions of your own. But if we are going to play the "please cite your sources" game here I'll play, provided it applies equally to everybody else and all the time. Failing in that, I feel no need to conduct research on behalf of another party.

Posting that I should "go look them up" is not reasonable

From your point, perhaps so. From my point, it is quite reasonable. Again, if we are going to hold everybody to the same standard of proof, I'll be glad to play. But unless we all play by the same rules I see no reason for me to do something that others do not have to do.

You brought up this alleged study saying it supported your argument that the fact I quoted based on Kleck's study was "horribly misleading".

No. I pointed out your statement, while factually correct, was horribly misleading, much like the "43 times" quote used by the antis. Then in another post I showed why I felt the statement was misleading, using the 2002 data to identify some of the problems with it. The studies (note that it is plural) showing higher rates and severity of injury are not in conflict with Kleck's study, they are a refinement of the information relating to a smaller subset. Thus while one bit of research looks at guns used in defense against ALL robbers, the other study looks at guns used in defense against robbers armed with guns. Then I give you a citation to support that statement I made, and you reject it out of hand because it doesn't meet your standards of specificity, in spite of the fact that it uses the language that is considered appropriate by the professionals in the field.

That means that the burden of proof (as to the existence of the study, its contents and its support of your argument) is on you.

Actually, if you want to use formal rules regarding burden of proof, I have provided a sourced citation from a qualified person in the field in support of what I have said, thus meeting my burden of proof. It is now incumbent upon you to either show why the source is not to be believed or provide a source of your own with equal or better qualifications in opposition.

[Night Watch]

Me? I'd just sit there, do my level best to ignore them, avoid eye contact, and continue eating those delicious white flour pancakes! As long as the BG's don't start frisking and robbing individual customers I wouldn't so much as blink an eye.

Now, if they decide to start frisking the customers I've got a serious problem on my hands - One that I'm not going to be able to hide! Then, it would be a, 'crap shoot' for me to accurately guesstimate whether or not they're going to violently respond when they discover the, 'gun store' I'm carrying underneath my cover garment.

I try to live by the golden rule: I wouldn't want some well-meaning citizen to heroically open up in the middle of a small confined room while me and mine were there; consequently, I prefer to show the same respect for life and reluctance to start a gunfight in front of everyone else.

(I'm positive I'd be very angry at someone who took it upon himself to kick off a heroic gunfight right in front of me - Especially if it were for something as just plain stupid as money or property.)

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

If you disagree with what I have said, please feel free to provide whatever evidence you think you need to support your disagreement.

David, I'm not the one disagreeing. I am still asking you to provide supporting evidence for your disagreement with my original comment.

If you remember how this started--I made a comment based on Kleck's data. You disagreed (said it was "horribly misleading") and implied that you were basing your statement on supporting data that was controlled for the factor of whether the BG was armed or not.

Now you're trying to claim that my asking you to reveal that data is disagreement on my part. That is absolutely incorrect. We're still dealing with your refusal to provide any reasonable supporting evidence to corroborate your initial disagreement with my comment.

To this point you have refused to provide any supporting evidence. The quote you provided** does not support your original contention in any way, shape, or form because it makes NO attempt to differentiate between the case when the attacker is armed and when he is not--the entire point of your original comment.

** "At the individual level, armed resistance with a gun can reduce the likelihood that a crime is completed but might increase the victim's chance of becoming injured." CRIME CONTROL IN AMERICA (2ed) by John L. Worrall, page 258."

[hogdogs]

Night watch, I respect your views. But to some of us the presence of a bad person "IN MY SPACE" trying to intimidate me and mine into giving up our belongings with the possibility of violence even if we comply is more than I will accept. If a bum on the street politely asked for my cash I would turn him down as I have no extra to spare so why comply with someone trying to force me into it?
Like I said If an armed person approaches my table I am going ape crap on him with what ever I have. If some one so much as trys to snatch a piece of my pancakes off my plate they will be met with the sharp end of my fork! Ask my kids... I don't give up what is mine easily... And honor is as much a reason to fight as anything.
I am not a gun toter currently and would never shoot someone for wanting my goods but if they try to use force I have all legal rights to assume severe bodily harm is intended and thus will retaliate... I have not won every scrap I have been in but have in the vast majority and some were against well armed individuals...
Brent

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Like I said If an armed person approaches my table I am going ape crap on him with what ever I have.

So if a person armed with a sawed off shot gun walked up to your table and stood 6 feet away and said "Throw your wallet to my partner" - you will jump up with your fork?

[Scattergun Bob]

Glenn,

Is It A BIG fork?

Please forgive my foolish attempt at humor.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[hogdogs]

Single shot or pump? No at that distance I will just tell him in more colorful language to go fly a kite in hopes he gets stupid and approaches... I do hope another patron takes this opportunity to take the shotgun toter out!
Brent

[David Armstrong]

I am still asking you to provide supporting evidence for your disagreement with my original comment.

Did that. You may not like it, you may disagree with it, but that was done.

You disagreed (said it was "horribly misleading") and implied that you were basing your statement on supporting data that was controlled for the factor of whether the BG was armed or not.

Not quite right. You seem to be co-mingling two things. One was that the data is misleading because of what the data is. The other is that there is other data that provides some evidence of a factor that is not addressed in the Kleck article.

Now you're trying to claim that my asking you to reveal that data is disagreement on my part. That is absolutely incorrect.

Nope. I'm saying if you disagree with what I have said about the findings of some of the research in the field please feel free to provide whatever you feel supports that disagreement. If you don't disagree there is no need for either of us to argue the point, IMO.

To this point you have refused to provide any supporting evidence.

Evidence has been provided. There was an explanation, with data provided, that showed why the Kleck finding as being used was questionable. There was a citation from an expert in the filed supporting the idea that ther can be increased injury when defending. You might not like that support, but let's not deny that it is there and was provided.

The quote you provided** does not support your original contention in any way, shape, or form because it makes NO attempt to differentiate between the case when the attacker is armed and when he is not

It supports the contention that fighting back with a gun can result in a greater chance of injuries than not fighting back.

the entire point of your original comment.

There are two points. One, the Kleck statement is misleading. I have discussed why it is misleading, even though factually correct. Second, using a gun to defend yourself might result in greater injury.
Out of curiosity, John, did you read the Worrall book? If not, why why this demand for chapter and verse citations?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So Hogdogs - you preach the absolute and then hedge your bets?

If he doesn't approach, do you throw the wallet? If you don't said BG may shoot to gain compliance for the others.

BTW, in a Florida incident - two geezers shot a shotgun carrying BG with a 22Mag NAA Mini and a 22 Mag Derringer. Said BG took the rounds in the belly and fled.

They didn't stick a fork in him or frisbee their early bird special at him in a whirling boneless chicken breast of death.

[pax]

Glenn ~

Got a link to that story? Gotta get into my files ...

pax

[hogdogs]

No I do not comply... if it is a single shot I hope I soaked up his only shell...
I refuse to comply with thugs demands (except gubmint thugs) The only thing in my wallet is too valuable to give up... My ID and social security card are not to be given up.
Yes sir I do hedge my bets But I will not waiver on my convictions and stand by the absolute.
Brent

[Night Watch]

Originally Posted by hotdogs

Night Watch, I respect your views. But to some of us the presence of a bad person "IN MY SPACE" trying to intimidate me and mine into giving up our belongings with the possibility of violence even if we comply is more than I will accept. If a bum on the street politely asked for my cash I would turn him down as I have no extra to spare so why comply with someone trying to force me into it?

Well, then, you’re just quicker to resort to violence or to kill than I am. When it comes to taking human life, ‘in my space’ is a meaningless expression to me. Will I voluntarily give up my personal belongings? If it means placing the lives of innocents at risk then, yes, I’m willing to let property go.

As another indication of the differences between our respective viewpoints: Around holiday time I have given money to homeless people. Sometimes it’s been money I needed for myself; I just thought that they might need it more.

Like I said If an armed person approaches my table I am going ape crap on him with whatever (Ed.) I have. If someone (Ed.) so much as tries (Ed.) to snatch a piece of my pancakes off my plate they will be met with the sharp end of my fork! Ask my kids ... I don't give up what is mine easily... And honor is as much a reason to fight as anything.

Well, first of all, there ain't a lot of, 'honor' associated with anything as proletarian as THE INTERNET! Sooner or later, someone is going to disagree, start playing dirty with you, and try to, 'steal your pancakes'! (Like so many other things in life, it takes a thick skin to come on here everyday, and being proud will often just get you into a larger argument!)

In this instance, though, I believe I said pretty much the same thing as you have just stated. In a robbery of this sort, if the perpetrator doesn’t start shooting or doesn't personally confront me, then, I will NOT take action.

The problem I have with personal confrontation is that it’s difficult for me to reach for my wallet without revealing some sort of, ‘tell’ that I’m heavily armed. I might be able to do it; or, I might not. This forces me to make a decision about whomever might be confronting me. You ALWAYS have to remember Rule #4, ‘Mark your target AND what is beyond.’

My suggestion would be for you to, at least, be aware of whichever circumstance might be the lesser of two evils - to draw and fire, or not to draw and fire?

I am not a gun totter (Ed.) currently and would never shoot someone for wanting my goods but if they try to use force I have all legal rights to assume severe bodily harm is intended and thus will retaliate ... I have not won every scrap I have been in but have in the vast majority and some were against well armed individuals ...

I am a, ‘gun totter’. Still, because I’ve seen more ugly realities in this life than I would have otherwise cared to, I remain a very reluctant, ‘fast gun’. The extraordinary skill level is certainly there; however, someone would have to really push me before I’d make a conscious decision to use it!

There’s one other thing you should be aware of before you become too proud, or get too bloodthirsty in a situation like this: Even if you take your armed assailant out clean, what happens when the other members of his street gang are confronted with a severe loss of face, and have to publicly bury a fallen associate because of what you did? Think you might lose a few nights’ sleep over something like that?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Don't have the URL anymore. But here you go.

Allison Thompson, Robber Gets Outgunned on Westside," Florida Times-Union
( Jacksonville, FL),September 24, 1997, p. B1.

Wednesday, September 24, 1997

Story last updated at 11:10 p.m. on Tuesday, September 23, 1997
Robber gets outgunned on Westside


By Allison Thompson
Times-Union staff writer

The shotgun-wielding man who burst into a crowded Jacksonville restaurant Monday night probably wasn't expecting Oscar Moore, but Moore had been waiting for him for years.

Moore, 69, of the Normandy area, said he goes over potential crime scenarios in his head and has been planning for something like the robbery he found himself in the middle of Monday. He said he carries a gun everywhere he goes unless it's illegal.

Yesterday, he said he had only one regret about the shooting - the gun he used.

''That gun I didn't trust to try to go for a head shot,'' said Moore, who shot the would-be robber in the midsection with a .22-caliber Magnum revolver. ''If I'd had another gun with me, I'd have gone for a head shotand taken care of it from here to eternity.''

As more than 30 diners sat in Sam's St. Johns Seafood at 4453 Blanding Blvd. about 7:20 p.m., a masked man entered the eatery and ordered everyone to the floor, said co-owner Sam Bajalia. The man grabbed waitress Amy Norton from where she and another waitress were huddled on the floor and tried to get her to open the cash register.

At that point, Moore stood up and shot him. Another diner, 81-year-old Robert Guerry of Birmingham, Ala., pulled out a .22-caliber derringer and fired at the man as he ran out of the restaurant. At least one shot hit the fleeing robber.

Seventeen-year-old Dervonne Marquise Moore of the 900 block of Frost Drive East arrived at St. Vincent's Medical Center later Monday night with a gunshot wound and was charged with armed robbery. Moore, who police said isn't related to Oscar Moore, underwent surgery and was in fair and stable condition yesterday.

Though it's been about five years since the restaurant was robbed, manager Carl Rix said he wasn't surprised when gunfire erupted.

Margaret Moore said she wasn't surprised either when her husband, who she said shoots pistols competitively, pulled out his gun.

''He goes prepared most places that he goes,'' she said.

She has had premonitions for the past several months that something was going to happen, Oscar Moore said.

Margaret Moore called her husband a hero, a sentiment others at the restaurant shared.

''I'm glad they [Moore and Guerry] were here because if that girl couldn't open the register, and he didn't get no money, he might have started shooting,'' Bajalia said.

Edward Hurst, 61, was having dinner with his brother and sister-in-law when the shooting began.

''I went over and thanked the one I thought hit him,'' Hurst said.

''They practically broke my arm shaking my hand,'' Oscar Moore said.

Norton, who has worked at the restaurant for a month and doesn't know how to open the cash register, was upset when Moore and Guerry shot at the robber.

''I was just scared they were going to miss and hit me,'' she said.

Police said Moore and Guerry won't be charged. Moore has a permit to carry a gun; it is unknown if Guerry has a similar permit from Alabama. He couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.

Moore believes with ''the weakness of our judicial system,'' a person confronted with a robbery should shoot to kill if given the opportunity.

''Somewhere along the line, we the people have to start protecting ourselves.''

[pax]

Thanks, Glenn. Muchly appreciated!

pax

[David Armstrong]

If a bum on the street politely asked for my cash I would turn him down as I have no extra to spare so why comply with someone trying to force me into it?

Because failure to comply can end up costing far more than you lose by compliance. That is the key, IMO....what course of action is the most likely to minimize loss of resources.

And honor is as much a reason to fight as anything.

Not sure how honorable it is to leave a family without a father, but this sounds a whole lot like why so many gangbangers fight.

[hogdogs]

i am not a gang banger... I do not go lookin' for trouble but if trouble comes lookin' for me I just haven't learned to run...
I have managed to stay alive thru the growth of my kids and my daughter... My daughter is 17 and knows her daddy ain't about to comply with no lowlife punk.
Brent

[Daryl]

I agree with Brent.

Arizona allows you to use physical, and/or deadly physical force if you are in fear of your life; OR, to the extent necessary to stop a serious felony in progress. That list of serious felonies included armed robbery.

I have absolutely no use for a thief, and leaving them the option of killing me (there were armed and threatening people, right?) is not ok with me if I can avoid it.

So, if I'm in a restaurant, eating dinner and minding my own business when a thug or two come in with guns to threaten my life, I'm most likely going to do something about it. At the first chance I have to end the threat, I'm probably going to do just that. Having a handgun in my hand under the table, and dropping the piece of trash when they approach me is likely.

I don't go around looking for trouble with other people, and I expect others to treat me with the same respect.

Daryl

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't think anyone disagrees with the right to take action against a lethal threat. However, that gets way confounded with what action is best to take.

Getting shot while waving a fork probably has a high probability of bad outcome than just giving over the wallet.

If the guy doesn't approach you and is just hitting the cash register - then the ambiguity starts. My story guy ran out after being shot. That he could run means he certainly could have fired into the waitress or the geezers.

There's no guarantees that action or inaction will be best and that's why someone argue for a continuum of response as compared to the automatic shootup based on philosopy.

l

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn,
I think there are a lot of brave courageous people out here in Internet Land. I bet most of them would s*it their pants and give up the wallet.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

. I bet most of them would s*it their pants and give up the wallet

Well, that will be one stinky wallet. :barf: