Video of robber killed in Pharmacy holdup - One-shot stop? Caliber?

[JohnKSa]

With all the information it could be very easy to conclude that defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence.

It's difficult to quantify precisely how much the attacker's being armed affects the situation but it's easy to refute the part about the "guaranteed death sentence".

If you read through Clayton Cramer's self-defense blog which consists of a huge volume of news articles on self-defense shootings you will find that it is fairly common for victims to remain uninjured even when they pull a gun against an armed attacker.

[Creature]

Okay, then "manipulate" the statistics to support a claim that fighting back is the best course of action against an armed assailant.

You're doing it for me. Just you keep on writing. It more of what YOU cant prove than what you can.

[Playboypenguin]

If you read through Clayton Cramer's self-defense blog which consists of a huge volume of news articles on self-defense shootings you will find that it is fairly common for victims to remain uninjured even when they pull a gun against an armed attacker.

Then it should not be hard for him to further break down his numbers and not rely on anecdotal evidence. I am not seeing where that has been done.

[JohnKSa]

Then it should not be hard for him to further break down his numbers and not rely on anecdotal evidence. I am not seeing where that has been done.

The problem with using Cramer's articles to try to determine precise numbers is that it's impossible to determine how the data was collected. It's reasonable to look at very general trends (multiple attackers are common, attackers tend to run when confronted by an armed citizen, armed citizens usually prevail even against attackers who seem to have the advantage, etc.) but it's not kosher to take those articles and make more specific claims (40% of the time there are multiple attackers, 90% of the time attackers run when confronted by an armed citizen, 85% of the time armed citizens prevail..., etc.).

The only reason I referenced it was because it provided an easy counterexample to the speculation that "defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence." It doesn't take much reading to see that it's not at all uncommon for a citizen to defend with a firearm "against an assailant armed with a firearm" and to remain uninjured. It's just not possible to try to construct a valid statistic (defendable percentage) from those articles.

[Playboypenguin]

The problem with using Cramer's articles to try to determine precise numbers is that it's impossible to determine how the data was collected

Exactly, that is why it is not very valuable. We would need to determine a way to use real reports to gather the numbers. It would be a huge undertaking but a worthwhile one. Things would have to be done very precisely. All information would need to come from police reports and be easily verified. Otherwise it is just conjecture. The other side of the argument spends a great deal of time and money doing just that on the opposite side of the argument. As I have mentioned before, I have a friend that is an actuary and he is very well paid to do just that.

[JohnKSa]

Exactly, that is why it is not very valuable.

It's not that it's not valuable, it's that one must be careful in using it.

As I pointed out, it's perfectly valid to draw general conclusions from the results or look for counterexamples and trends, but it's a mistake to try to calculate numbers.

As I have mentioned before, I have a friend that is an actuary and he is very well paid to do just that.

He probably has access to raw data that would answer the question, it's just a matter of compiling it and doing the calculations.

I seriously doubt that any insurance company will pay him to do so, however, since it's not in their interest (limiting their liability) to provide statistics showing that armed self-defense is an advantage in any situation.

[Playboypenguin]

He probably has access to raw data that would answer the question, it's just a matter of compiling it and doing the calculations.

You would think that we could also get the information. It is public record. It would be a ton of work though. Something for one of the major gun groups to possibly undertake. Of course we do run into the possibility of doing all that work and not liking the conclusion.

You can't really draw a valid conclusion (general consensus or otherwise) without the real facts. You can't even look at trends if you do not know the circumstances of the attack. We would absolutely have to know if the assailant possessed a firearm at the time or not and know how many of those times went which way..

[Creature]

You can't really draw a valid conclusion (general consensus or otherwise) without the real facts. You can't even look at trends if you do not know the circumstances of the attack.

Now you're getting it. So, its back to gut feeling and personal experience.

[Playboypenguin]

Now you're getting it. So, its back to gut feeling and personal experience.

No, it comes down to looking at the numbers that DO include the necessary information and discarding anecdotes, exceptions to the rule, and unsupported arguments.

[Creature]

There you go again. Mistaking shaky and manipulated statistical data as fact...and dismissing personal experience, exceptions to the rule and anecdotes as irrelevant.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The key to it all is an ability to accurately interpret the intent of the BG. While we can't "read minds" we can interpret actions and observe body language to get an idea of what direction things may be headed. Any person being robbed who gets the idea that violence is forth coming would be just as fool hardy to not act as would the person who starts a gun fight after the BG is leaving peacefully.

[Creature]

Okay...are you able to accurately interpret whether a BG intends to shoot you or not when he is pointing a gun directly at you? Are you going to rely on "the insurance company's statistics" to decide?

[Creature]

<sound of crickets>

Yes?...no?...anyone?

[BuckHammer]

I learned in this thread that when you make a claim, it's up to the opposition to prove you wrong. Interesting. I seem to remember that the burden of proof rests upon the party that is making the claim.

[JohnKSa]

You can't really draw a valid conclusion (general consensus or otherwise) without the real facts. You can't even look at trends if you do not know the circumstances of the attack.

That's true as far as it goes. However none of the articles provide zero information about the circumstances of the attack, and, it is to be presumed that the vast majority of them provide "real facts".

It is true that some are so sketchy as to be useless, others provide a considerable amount of information and even without knowing all the circumstances, it's still possible to look at trends if the pertinent circumstances are included.

Yes, as you read through the hundreds of articles (maybe thousands, I don't have the time nor inclination to count them) on the blog I mentioned you will find that some of them are so brief that they're not helpful. However, that is the exception rather than the rule.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by creature

Okay...are you able to accurately interpret whether a BG intends to shoot you or not when he is pointing a gun directly at you?

Yes... and no. I have no doubt that there are situations wherein the intent of the BG would be obvious. I'm equally sure that there are times that it is not.

The only thing I'm sure of is that "Gun! Shoot him!" as a standard, irreducible response is dangerously over simplistic. I'm not saying that you (or anyone in this thread) is necessarily advocating that idea but there are many who do.

Every one of us, when presented with a SD situation must make certain calculations and assumptions in planning our reaction to that situation. No two situations are identical, no two BGs have the same intent and no two of them can be counted on to react identically to our response. Dynamic situations require dynamic responses. There is no one size fits all.

[AK103K]

Okay...are you able to accurately interpret whether a BG intends to shoot you or not when he is pointing a gun directly at you?

Thats easy. The second he points the gun, he's started the ball rolling. The only way to stop it, is for him to put the gun down and get face down on the deck. Until that occurs, hes getting shot, stabbed/cut, or beaten, or all of the above, at the first opportune moment.

Are you going to rely on "the insurance company's statistics" to decide?

Nope.

Personally, I dont see what statistics have to do with any of this. There MAY be statistical data to support or disprove a lot of things, but who cares? It seems to me, every occurrence is a new slate, and the guy with the other gun is the one who makes all the decisions, his and yours.

Dynamic situations require dynamic responses.

Absolutely, and you need to determine beforehand just what that will be, given a simple, basic set of criteria. This isnt the time to start a deep, analytical discussion with yourself. If hes walking like a duck, and quacking like a duck, hes a dead duck.

There is no one size fits all.

No, there isnt, but you can sure put it into S-M-L instead of 20 or 30 specific sizes.

[Brian Pfleuger]

If hes walking like a duck, and quacking like a duck, hes a dead duck.

That is a one size fit all decision. It equates to "Gun! Shoot Him!"

We can all think of 1000 scenarios that are inarguable "shoot" situations and I think we can come up with 1000 scenarios that are arguably "don't shoot" scenarios, all of which involve guns.

We've all had this discussion before. The goal of a SD situation is, quite simply, to make the BG go away and leave me alone. Sometimes that means shoot him, sometimes not. Sometimes it means cooperate, sometimes not. Sometimes it's cooperate one second and shoot the next. The "Gun! Shoot!!" mentality can be dangerous to you and every one in the area should it ever goes down.

[Creature]

Sitting around trying to determine which of those 1000 scenarios you are smack in the middle of will likely get you killed.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Sitting around trying to determine which of those 1000 scenarios you are smack in the middle of will likely get you killed.

Yes, it will. Acting without thinking MAY do the same. The situation MUST be analyzed to determined what you believe to be the best course of action. Acting blindly based on preconceived notions can get you just as dead as not acting, sometimes deader, since not acting CAN be, in fact is, safe in many cases.

We must not believe that compliance MIGHT be deadly and action WON'T be deadly. Either could be deadly when the other may have been safe. The question is "Which action IN THIS CASE is safer?"

Let's take your example. You've been mugged 4 times and beaten 4 times. It is reasonable to believe that a mugging in that area will result in significant injury, therefore it is reasonable to take action. However, if you move to a new city then things may change. The sub-culture could be different, muggings may be generally "peaceful" (I know, "peaceful mugging", let's not go down that road) in that city and only those who resist tend to get hurt. Now, you personally might be inclined to resist and that's fine, I'm not saying it's wrong but in THAT city it may be that you are safer to NOT resist. Yes, I know, that situation is what it is and statistics don't apply to individual situations but that doesn't change the fact that resistance in one place or situation may be needed while compliance is safer in another.

[AK103K]

Sitting around trying to determine which of those 1000 scenarios you are smack in the middle of will likely get you killed.

Exactly!

You have to pre determine what your response will be to basic problems, even though the problem may not be simple. You have to set specific safeties he removes by his actions and implement your response at your pre determined level.

Simple to me is, he has a gun, hes pointing that gun at me, or someone else who doesnt deserve it, and by doing so, has already made his intention plain, so the next step will be for me to neutralize him by all and any means at the first possible opportunity.

You make things a lot easier on yourself if you have this worked out ahead of time. If you wait until its on you, and then try to reason it out, you'll die thinking when you should be doing something.

You also have to get your head right. There is nothing defensive about your response, its all pure aggression.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Simple to me is, he has a gun, hes pointing that gun at me, or someone else who doesnt deserve it, and by doing so, has already made his intention plain, so the next step will be for me to neutralize him by all and any means at the first possible opportunity.

Actually, I completely agree with that statement. The question is "When does that opportunity present itself?" It is entirely possible that it will not present itself, the BG will get his money (or whatever) and go away. That would be a fine outcome in my book.

[Creature]

My point was that inaction will get you injured or killed quicker than taking action.

In my case, each time I was compliant and handed over my valuables. But each time, the other guy behind me decided to try and kill me. At least that's what it felt like at the time.

The last two times I was accosted (mugging #3 and #4), I was initally compliant. I handed over my valuables without resistance. But as soon as they began began hitting me, I fought back. I was weaponless each time, but I fought back anyway.

In these last two muggings in which I resisted, my injuries were FAR LESS painful than mugging #2, which put me in the hospital. I can tell you that the recovery from my injuries in that mugging was no fun and has left me permanently physically scarred.

I will always choose to act rather than do nothing.

[AK103K]

I will always choose to act rather than do nothing.

While every situation is different, I agree with Creature for the most part.

The aggressor almost always has the advantage, especially if he acts first.

The boy who got shot in the video made the mistake of presenting an intent, the guard acted quickly and decisively, and prevailed. The other boy was way behind the curve at that point and never had a chance to recover. It could have easily been the other way around.

[Creature]

Anyone who tells you that when staring evil in the face to "Do nothing...you'll be fine!" is full of...themselves.