Why and when would you pull the trigger?

[David Armstrong]

Not everyone can get that principle.

True, and more problematic, I feel is as you further state---some don't even want to get the principle.

If you read victimology studies in the CJ literature - you know there are no guarantees about outcomes - there are just odds.

That's about it. And what I always find so curious in instances like this is why people would intentionally handicap themselves by knowing as little as possible about what the odds really are. You can live or die as the result of various actions and choices, it would seem that one would want to decide on the action or choice with the best information available to maximize the live chances and minimize the die chances.

[threegun]

Most criminal events that involve deadly force start out that way. If you haven't been shot/stabbed/beaten/etc right off the bat there is a very small chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten/etc later on. Criminals tend to threaten in order to gain compliance, and as long as that compliance is there the event rarely escalates

Probabilities and percentages are a must for Texas Holdem or the stock market. If your wrong you lose money. In a criminal scenario its death. That raises the odds in my book well beyond anything that the FBI's uniformed crime report stats indicate. That might be hard for some internet forensic gunfight analyst to understand but it is the real world.

[Justme]

I get it, only play the odds in poker or the stock market, if your life is at risk do whatever you feel like and ignore the odds.

[threegun]

I get it, only play the odds in poker or the stock market, if your life is at risk do whatever you feel like and ignore the odds.

No you don't do whatever you feel like....come on man. Why do you even carry? Odds are that the use of your gun will escalate the situation and increase the likelihood that you die.

Odds when they relate to life and death aren't the same.

If 10 armed men in a room were told that one might die if no action is taken or two might die if action is taken what do you do? Since death is final I believe I have to act despite the increase in danger doing so. Precisely the reason I carry. So that I can determine my fate not some scumbag.

[Justme]

You are well within your rights to act in an illogical and counterproductive way. I know people who will drive 30minutes out of the way because they want to avoid a 15 minute traffic jam. It's the same thing. To some people control is more important than life itself.

[threegun]

To some people control is more important than life itself.

You post as if acting equals death and not acting equals life.

Both are wrong. My training guarantees a fighting chance and being in control. Playing the odds guarantees nothing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The odds are just information as to likely outcome. The point is that one should know that some situations are better not escalated. You have to make the final call but it is better to know what happens and when then not.

Simple point.

[Justme]

You post as if acting equals death and not acting equals life.

Sometimes that is true. Sometimes the inverse(or is it converse?) is true. This is what you should base your decision on, not on which will give you the most control over the situation.

[Lurper]

The odds are just information as to likely outcome. The point is that one should know that some situations are better not escalated.

The problem with that Glenn, is there is no way to know which ones should and which ones shouldn't. IMO, it is much more desireable for me to make that decision than the BG if at all possible. Sure most incidents probably don't result in the BG killing or injuring the victim, but I am not willing to leave that decision to chance. No one can tell me which criminal is more or less likely to kill, therefore I assume every one of them is a killer. I think it is rather disigenuous to condemn those who would choose to act as the default choice. Maybe it has nothing to do with " . . . dipped in gun theory and fighting, will act in an incident. They see themselves as heroes and winners in combat . . . " and more to do with seeing one's self as surviving an incident.

[Groundhog]

Maybe all you guys just over-analyze stuff. I seriously doubt very many people think along these lines when confronted with a possibly lethal situation. At that time, either training or instinct rules.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, Lurper - I'm just arguing for knowning the facts. I don't disparage a reasoned choice. I just don't respect the view that the facts are irrelevant which is the flavor of some.

For the record, at the NTI:

1. One year, a dude ran in and shot the banker. I was meek. He shot me on the way out.
2. This year, nut runs in and shoots the judge - I try a disarm - criticized for doing that. He was going to just run out (well, how did I know that - last time I was shot)
3. Guy with gun starts to rob a store - I challenge, we get into gun fight. I shoot him. Well, I should have stayed low and let him leave. I said, he had a gun and I couldn't trust him to be rational.

I've been all over the place on judging actions. I just argue for knowing the typical pattern as useful info. That's my simple point.

[David Armstrong]

The problem with that Glenn, is there is no way to know which ones should and which ones shouldn't.

But wouldn't you think you are more likely to be able to figure out should/shouldn't the more information you have?

Sure most incidents probably don't result in the BG killing or injuring the victim, but I am not willing to leave that decision to chance.

But either way one has to address the element of chance, so should one go with the optimal chance or not?

I think it is rather disigenuous to condemn those who would choose to act as the default choice.

I can't speak for Glenn, but I don't think that is the case. Certainly it isn't for me. I condemn those who choose to act without considering what the facts are. Doing so, almost by definition, prohibits a good choice. If one develops a default based on "the BG is always going to try to kill me and I will always win without getting hurt if I fight back" is, well, faulty.

No one can tell me which criminal is more or less likely to kill, therefore I assume every one of them is a killer.

Actually one can tell which criminal is more or less likely to kill, with varying levels of accuracy. Because one cannot do so with 100% accuracy does not mean it should not be done.

I just argue for knowing the typical pattern as useful info. That's my simple point.

Amen!

I get it, only play the odds in poker or the stock market, if your life is at risk do whatever you feel like and ignore the odds.

That's a great point. We use the odds to help us determine the best action in virtually everything we do in llife, why some think they should be ignored when dealing with life and death just doesn't make much sense. You don't need to let the odds determine your actions all the time (such as bluffing in poker) but they can sure help you.

[Lurper]

The problem is that they aren't really facts, they are statistics. The key element that cannot be factored in is the human element. Even though many therapists want to say that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, that is not true. If it were - once a junkie always a junkie, once a thief always a thief. As it applies to this topic, that means just because the BG didn't kill/injure his last victim bears no relevance to what he will do this time. I am not dismissing the fact that your actions may induce an outcome that would not have happened otherwise. What I am saying is that there are no facts that can tell you as a victim in the moment the incident occurs who is more likely to kill you or not. Thinking that there is is a recipe for disaster imo. Therefore, since it may be my last stand, I will decide what action I take.

But wouldn't you think you are more likely to be able to figure out should/shouldn't the more information you have?

That information isn't applicable on an individual basis. Sure, it applies in a broad sense and a sociologist or criminalist may be able to predict what is LIKELY to happen with reasonable certainty, but they cannot predict what WILL happen with any degree of certainty. From 30,000 feet up, all of the data and statistics make sense, but from down and dirty looking down the muzzle of a gun or at the blade of a knife, you can throw all the data away, it don't mean squat.

If one develops a default based on "the BG is always going to try to kill me and I will always win without getting hurt if I fight back" is, well, faulty.

As opposed to the mindset that: "statistically in 80% of the cases, no one is hurt, so I should just passively let him have his way with me and begone?" A more realistic mindset would be: "If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."
There is no false bravado or Ramboism to that statement. Visualizing yourself as victorious in situations like this is a positive action. Would you rather someone see themselves as a victim? Seeing yourself as a winner, you will be much more likely to act decisively than if you don't.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A more realistic mindset would be: "If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."


No, a more realistic mindset is:

1. If I can escape I will
2. In certain instances, the crime will go down and no one will be hurt.
3. I have to evaluate if this is the case here before I start the gun fight.
4. If I think that it will progress to people being hurt (me or the ones I care about), then I take action.

Not knowing that a pattern of crimes usually end without someone being hurt is again ignoring knowledge. Saying it is statistics and not facts really doesn't mean anything. I'm not in the mood for a behavior prediction lecture but are arguing like the following. Cigarettes cause health problems in most people, however some people don't have those problems. Thus, knowing that smoking may predict health problems in most but not all is useless and you will smoke.

Maybe not a perfect analogy but close.

Are you better off knowing that bank robberies usually don't end with violence so that you don't automatically start a gun fight that might go badly. Might be statistically of interest that a percent of robberies have a backup unknown to you, so that if start the gun fight, surprise!

About looking down the muzzle of a gun and the odds meaning nothing:

1. Bank robberies usually go well. You see the gun and you let it go down. I think that only 4% have violence.

2. You look at the muzzle of the gun and draw your gun - what's the comparable odds of that going well?

We all make our choices. Arguing for the automatic gun fight as compared to the reasoned gun fight is a style you will have to choose.

[MyXD40]

I think the most efective way to get your point accross that you're not scared to pull the trigger is to drop the mag, and chuck it at the BG.

[Lurper]

I never advocated "automatically" starting a gunfight. What I am saying is you can cite all the statistics in the world, but in the situation you have no way of knowing whether your assailant is in the minority or the majority as far as resulting to violence goes. You also cannot relate his past behavior in terms of violence to this particular incident because a whole new set of variables is introduced. In short you don't know what he is going to do! We agree on a lot of things, but I think saying that classifying this stuff as "information" that should be considered when making a life or death decision is a stretch. IMO, the only information that should be considered is the situational information and the knowledge of your own ability.

Bank robberies usually go well. You see the gun and you let it go down. I think that only 4% have violence.

Big difference between a Bank robbery and someone robbing you at gunpoint. I would be less inclined to act due to the situation, but you still don't know whether you are in that 4% or not. The scary part to me is that I don't get to make that decision. Another point I am trying to make is that it is a judgement call. It is not a mathematical equation where you can say I know that x+y=z, therefore 2(x+y)=2z. The only real valid information you have is the information presented to you by the situation. You evaluate and make a judgement based on that information.

You look at the muzzle of the gun and draw your gun - what's the comparable odds of that going well?

For me the odds are pretty good but that's because I train constantly and have a yardstick to measure by. However, that also illustrates another set of variables. Once an action is initiated another large set of variables is introduced which makes duplicating an outcome impossible.

I'm not arguing that you should automatically start a gun fight. I am certainly not arguing that you should submit to the BG's wil. What I am saying is that the decision should be situationally based, not statistically based.

[threegun]

"If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."

Lurper, My feelings exactly.

Someone said that I shouldn't start a gun fight with an armed bad guy who has yet to display violent behavior because stats say they won't. I disagree because, as stated by Lurper, humans are unpredictable and because death unlike poker is final. So being wrong is not an option.

Should I pass on an opportunity to end the threat simply because it increases my odds of getting hurt? I don't think so. Because my crystal ball broke and I can't be 100 percent sure of the prefered non gunfight option. Thats my point

Pretty simple.

[RockyMtnTactical]

"If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."

It's hard to argue with this.

It's hard to add much more to it as well.

[tegemu]

I think along the lines of the Florida law. If someone is about to kill me or someone else or to commit serious harm, and has the capability, or is about to commit a forcible felony. I will shoot.

[threegun]

Here's something else to ponder.

Odds and stats for those who decide to fight I would argue are skewed as well. I don't know many folks with the skill of say Mr. Lurper getting into gunfights. Heck I am far better with a firearms than most folks and have never been in a gunfight. In fact most of the gunfight folks that I know (including customers) have little skill and no tactical training. Oh and all survived and most won.

Since the vast majority of armed citizens have little or no training the stats are skewed to the negative for folks involved in a shootout.

[David Armstrong]

The problem is that they aren't really facts, they are statistics.

Ummm, I'm not following you. Statistics ARE facts (assuming one is following the basic rules of the game).

The key element that cannot be factored in is the human element.

Sure it can, and you do it all the time with other events. Why should a criminal event be any different? Again, just because you can't do it with 100% accuracy doesn't mean it is useless.

Even though many therapists want to say that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, that is not true.

I think you are confusing a "best indicator" with an "absolute predictor."

As it applies to this topic, that means just because the BG didn't kill/injure his last victim bears no relevance to what he will do this time.

I'm sorry, but that is just not correct. Again, it may not be the only factor, and it may not be accurate 100% of the time, but it does have some relevance. Who do you think is most likely to kill you, the robber who has shot 9 of his last 10 victims or the robber who has never harmed anybody in his 10?

Therefore, since it may be my last stand, I will decide what action I take.

I agree. I just think the decision should be based on an accurate understanding of as much information as possible.

Sure, it applies in a broad sense and a sociologist or criminalist may be able to predict what is LIKELY to happen with reasonable certainty, but they cannot predict what WILL happen with any degree of certainty.

So, would you rather base your decision on what is LIKELY to happen with a reasonable degree of certainty, or on some stuff you just make up without anything to support it?

As opposed to the mindset that: "statistically in 80% of the cases, no one is hurt, so I should just passively let him have his way with me and begone?"

I'm not aware that anyone has suggested any such behavior, so it is somewhat deceptive to present it that way.

A more realistic mindset would be: "If I am presented with the opportunity to escape, I will take it. When that option is removed, I will fight with every fiber of my being and will not give up until I have taken my last breath."

How about the option "I will do everything I reasonable can to reduce the potential for damage to me and my loved ones" as a realistic mindset? If that invovles fighting, great, go to it, but there are other options to be considered.

Would you rather someone see themselves as a victim?

No, I would rather someone understand the realities and likelihoods of their actions and make an informed choice based on that.

[BillCA]

Wow... talk about over analyzing things!

1. Defensive gun use (DGU) incidents require a threat the life or limb. The guy with a gun threatens to kill or maim to get what he wants.
2. In an incident, I don't know the history of this gene-tampered turkey with a weapon. He may not be in that 4% or kills his victims. I do know that he's threatening my life or the lives of others right now!
3. When at gunpoint, you must presume the BG will use the gun. That's his force, his threat. Sure, if you draw your odds of survival may be low. But low odds are significantly better than zero odds.
4. To completely capitulate and do nothing means leaving the decision whether you live or die up to the BG. He's already shown poor decision-making skills (otherwise he wouldn't be robbing you) and he may not have any mercy or empathy in his soul. This is not the kind of person I want deciding my future!
5. Countless beatings, homicides and rapes have occurred as the result of a robbery that started off with a simple demand for money. Because the incident does not start with wanton violence does not mean it will end the same way.
6. Armed robbery is a threat to my life. I can get more money. I can get new credit cards and ID. I can buy a new iPod or cell phone. But my life is mine and I cannot replace it. Threatening to take life itself is the worst of all crimes. If he's willing to do that, through his threats then I am under no obiligation to believe he's suddenly overcome with truthfulness when he says gimme the money and you won't get hurt.
7. Talk about odds or statistical probabilities or psychological profiles all you want. When it comes down to it, someone is putting you or others in danger. It is their actions, facial expressions, body language and words that will be the most important factors in deciding if/when to employ lethal force.

I'm not advocating that you engage in every circumstance but to rely on some statistical probability when you don't know all the factors may also get you killed. It may be that 96% of robberies end without injuries, but how do you know if the one you're involved in is the 97th one today?

[45Marlin carbine]

would be interesting to see the response of the people that have been murdered if they could give an answer to the question and add to it 'if you had been armed'

[Lurper]

Ummm, I'm not following you. Statistics ARE facts (assuming one is following the basic rules of the game).

They are not hard facts in that you cannot reach into the universe, pull out one sample and say what the outcome will be. You can only say that if he falls within the standard deviation, he is x% likely to do X. You don't know how many points away from the mean in either direction (which changes the odds) or even if he is a statistical outlyer. Also, you (as a victim) usually have no way of knowing his past behavior, so you cannot even begin to extrapolate where he falls in the sample. So while academically that "knowledge" may be useful, from a practical standpoint it is not (as is so often the case). Additionally, with any given sample each incident involves millions of new variables that weren't involved in the last incident which makes each incident virtually unique. Was the victim a male or female? Was he more or less passive than this one? Was the last one armed? Did he/she resist in any way? Was the BG high last time or this time? Was the sun shining in his eyes? Did he get laid last night? All of these factors can have an effect on the outcome. I don't think that in a one on one single incident basis anyone has the luxury of relying on these statistics. There are plenty of cases of BGs escalating the level of violence as their crime careers progress and you have no way of knowing if this is the time when he chooses to cross the line from robbery to homicide. It's sort of like what they say about home land security: we only have to be wrong once to have devastating consequences.

[threegun]

would be interesting to see the response of the people that have been murdered if they could give an answer to the question and add to it 'if you had been armed'

One thing is for sure.....they would crap all over statistics!

I would rather rely on my abilities with a defensive firearm for survival than some badguys decision. I believe thats why we carry isn't it.

It's sort of like what they say about home land security: we only have to be wrong once to have devastating consequences.

Precisely my point. If I am wrong I die.........without a chance to fight. If I am wrong in choosing to initiate a shootout and die...........at least I had a fighting chance and no one can predict if I would have lived had I not acted.

So am I to pass on a golden opportunity to end a threat if said threat hasn't displayed physical violence yet? I don't think so.

I can tell you this. When trouble happens you ain't gonna have time for stats. If I would have pondered the stats before addressing the threat when it almost happened to me I would have gone from even in the reactionary curve to behind in a literal flash.