active compliance more likely to get you killed?

[David Armstrong]

Yes, but you are assigning a value to an interpretation. Data are just data, nothing more.

Yes, and when the data suggest that something works 87% of the time I would suggest that is fairly "pro" whatever we are discussing. In this case we are discussing whether compliance is more likely to get you killed than resisting. 87% of the time compliance works in this context. Sounds pretty "pro" to me. You may say it doesn't matter, but the odds say otherwise.

If we take the data as a pattern that continues to work today, then knowing that 1 in every 8 robbery type events is going to result in the compliant person being harmed or killed is not a very good safety margin, is it?

Depends. What is the likelihoood of getting injured or killed without compliance? How many of the 1 in 8 result in injury as opposed to death, and what level of injury are we looking at.

In the statistical realm, how do you know if you are going to be the 1 of 8 or one of the 7 or 8?

You don't. Just like you don't know if you will be one of the hundreds of folks involved in a car wreck today or one of the thousands that don't have a wreck. But do you start out the day based on the common or the unusual?

The reason why it works so well much of the time is that the bad guys often have no intent on hurting people in the first place. So this gives the false impression that compliance is a much better thing than maybe it really is.

Not really. If it works most of the time, it works most of the time. Nothing false about that impression.

There are a goodly number of "armed robberies" where the guns are fake, unloaded, or otherwise not functional. There are a goodly number of bank robberies where the gun is just stated to exist in a note, along with other threats such as bombs or chemical agents (that turn out to not exist at all).

And since there is no danger at all, then it becomes a null game. Compliance results in no injury of any significance.

What isn't going to happen is to have a statistic on the number of crimes where the robbers intend and have the ability to use violence on non-compliant people and look at the number of times people are or are not hurt during those robberies. That sort of data would be much more useful on determining the success of compliance and non-compliance.

Maybe not stats, but we do have a fair body of research on that, some of which was mentioned in other discussions on this. We do have plenty of info that says the BGs tend to want compliance and if they get it no violence is used. If violence is planned, it tends to come at the start of the event.

Look folks, do what you want. If you want to start a blazing gunfight when there is no need, go ahead. Maybe the dark sky will turn blue, the little birdies will start to sing, women will throw themselves at your feet, the public will lavish you with praise, the Mayor will give you the key to the city and a lifetime pension. Maybe the bad guy will faint at the mere thought of your great prowess and fighting ability, and maybe, if you shoot, you will never miss and the BG will be instantly neutralized. Maybe.
If you want you can play the odds and cooperate. If things go well, great, no problem. If they start going bad, you can escalate then. But once you start the shooting you can't go back.
If you just can't face the thought of "deflated wiener syndrome" you can talk with Glenn!

 

[nobody_special]

Do you think that it's possible that the policy of which you speak is primarily (or at least heavily) motivated by liability mitigation and not necessarily because the admins believe that compliance is the safest course of action?

It's possible, but I tend to doubt that as a major motive. After all, they do suggest intervention/action when it appears there is significant danger to life and limb. Most that I have talked to say it is a safety issue, both for the officer and the citizens involved, GG and BG. No need to start a gunfight when you don't have to.

Suggesting intervention when it appears there is significant danger of bodily harm may also be due to liability concerns... for example, if a convenience store is robbed, the clerk is killed, and an off-duty officer is present but takes no action, I imagine more than a few pointed questions may be asked...

I must agree that the data you've shown do not suggest to me that compliance is the best strategy. A 13% chance of injury is quite high. In order to demonstrate that compliance is a good strategy, you need to show that the chance of serious injury is significantly higher to people who forcefully resist (via firearm).

These statistics should exist but I haven't seen them.

 

[David Armstrong]

will not believe for an instant unless you SHOW that SPECIFIC policy,

Sigh, I guess you got me. I can't show you a SPECIFIC policy that says "When you are off-duty and going to a movie with your wife, if approached by 2 POSs demanding money that you must consider compliance as the primary option." Policies aren't written that way, and you should know that.

"Intervening vs. Not Intervening" is NOT the same as "Compliance vs. Non-Compliance." It's absurd for you to try to make them one and the same. They are fundamentaly different.

No. They can be fundamentally different, but they can also be fundamentally alike. Much depends on the context in which you are using them and the situation under discussion. For example:

Apple:
Officer is off-duty and working in a convenience store for extra cash. A BG enters the store and proceeds to rob it. The BG also demands all the customers put their money on the counter. Officer does what the BG says.
This is compliance. This is also non-intervention.
Also Apple:
Officer is off-duty and goes into convenience store to buy a drink. While at the counter paying for the drink a BG comes in and proceeds to rob it. The BG also demands the customers put their money on the counter. The officer does so.
This is compliance. This is also non-intervention.

And no insult intended.

Then none shall be taken.

 

[David Armstrong]

A 13% chance of injury is quite high.

Not nearly as high as an 87% chance that you won't get injured.

In order to demonstrate that compliance is a good strategy, you need to show that the chance of serious injury is significantly higher to people who forcefully resist (via firearm).

That's a whole different thread. As for your reasoning, no, you don't need to discuss the chance of serious injury during resistance in order to demonstrate that compliance is a good strategy. Compliance is a good strategy because it works in the great majority of the time and still leaves most options open for you to use if it doesn't work.

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.

 

[Wagonman]

http://www.tv.com/video/15055/dances-with-wolves?o=tv&tag=show_summary;v

 

[nobody_special]

As for your reasoning, no, you don't need to discuss the chance of serious injury during resistance in order to demonstrate that compliance is a good strategy.

Bzzt, wrong... you must discuss the chance of serious injury, and compare it to the chance of serious injury when other actions are taken. With just the one statistic, you are completely unable to draw any conclusions. For all you know, compliance (being 13% likely to result in injury) may be the action which is most likely to cause injury.

Now, I'm not saying that's true... I'm just saying that you haven't proven your case, in fact you haven't even provided good evidence to back it up.

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.

Not strange at all, because numerous studies show (for example) that people who jump out of airplanes without a parachute have a very high chance of expiring messily, whereas the chance is much lower for who have parachutes. You must compare the two probabilities in order to draw any conclusion; however, you're arguing a conclusion from just one statistic here.

 

[JohnKSa]

But it is a waste of time if the other party is unwilling to examine the evidence...

Come on now. You're upset because I DID examine your "evidence", not because I'm unwilling to.

Ummm, you didn't point out the failure to differentiate in Kleck's work and discuss why that makes it suspect in the context it was being used, did you??

To be frank, David, I hadn't ever considered that aspect of Kleck's work before you brought it up. That's why I was so interested in seeing the supporting data that you claimed addressed the shortcoming.

You, on the other hand, clearly have thought about that issue and yet chose to make a point of it when it suited your argument and ignore it when it didn't. It's ironic that you're still accusing me of having a double-standard.

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

I think there's some confusion about what these statistics mean.

Let's say we're interviewing crime victims and we have a pool of 300 victims to study. In our hypothetical study it turns out that 100 of those people chose to comply and 87 of them remained uninjured. Another 100 chose to resist using a wet noodle while shouting nursery rhymes in Swahili and 51 of them remained uninjured. The final 100 chose to resist with a firearm and 93 of them remained uninjured.

Since the wet noodle/Swahili nursery rhyme works most of the time (51% of the time), by your standard we can stop looking at the data. Since it works most of the time it should be the primary strategy.

In fact, it turns out that in our hypothetical study ALL of the three strategies work MOST of the time. Clearly ALL of them can't be the primary strategy.

The fact that something works most of the time does NOT indicate that it is the best strategy or that it should be the primary strategy. One must also examine the other available strategies to see if they work MORE often. In the hypothetical study above resistance with a firearm is the best strategy since it works 93% of the time vs compliance which works 87% of the time or the wet noodle/Swahili nursery rhyme method which works 51% of the time.

Perhaps now you understand why I feel it's so important to see the study data.

 

[BillCA]

One point that seems to be missed in all this discussion about what methodology or strategy "works" is this...

To me, a strategy "works" if you are not robbed and you do not sustain any serious injury requiring a hospital visit.

It's one thing to say compliance "works" -- but you now are out the $80 in your wallet, your ID, credit cards and other documents. Your actual cost may be much higher, especially if you become a victim of ID theft.

It's quite different if your strategy really works to the extent that you are uninjured and you still have your valuables. Said strategy works best if your opponent has fled the scene without forcing you to cause him injury. If you are forced to injure him, then the strategy still worked, but it may be a Phyrric victory by the time predominantly anti-gun civil authorities are finally satisfied you were the victim.

Sigh. And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time. If you don't like the results or disagree with the findings, then just talk about how the researchers themselves are bad. Yet I don't see you using the same set of standards for those "research results" that you agree with, even though they are from noted pro-gunners. Do you think it's wise to use the opinions and "research results" from noted pr-gunners to support a strategy of gun use? Now that the hypocrisy has been fully exposed, 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.

I think it overbroad to claim that "the hypocrisy" is fully exposed.

Experience shows that when flaws are uncovered in studies by Lott, Kleck, et al, they are usually highly technical in nature -- e.g. not having a variable to account for economic changes or failing to control for other legal changes. On the other hand, peer reviewed studies from the anti-gun side reveal purposeful exclusive choices when selecting data (Kellerman, Cook, Ludwig, Bogus) - aka "cherry picking", serious flaws in their data model (Bogus, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, Wintemute), basing conclusions on non-correlative data (Kellerman, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, Wintemute) and omitting relevant facts or other studies (most).

Then, of course, we have a whole set of so-called "researchers" who publish anti-gun articles and who refuse to release their data for peer review. The now infamous Michael Bellesiles comes to mind, as does David Hemenway and his NEJM articles.

So, when it comes to studies by certain "researchers", the results of those studies must be considered with a jaundiced eye until profession peer-reviews are available. They've earned it.

 

[David Armstrong]

Bzzt, wrong... you must discuss the chance of serious injury, and compare it to the chance of serious injury when other actions are taken. With just the one statistic, you are completely unable to draw any conclusions.

Bzzzt...double wrong. You are able to draw a very good conclusion. Compliance works 87% of the time.

Now, I'm not saying that's true... I'm just saying that you haven't proven your case, in fact you haven't even provided good evidence to back it up.

Of course not. That is my point. Evidence you disagree with is never good evidence, evidence that supports your belief is always good evidence. To which I'll add the question...have you read the evidence I suggested might be a start? Have you done like Glenn suggest and done a Google Scholar search and read the professional literature in the field?

You must compare the two probabilities in order to draw any conclusion; however, you're arguing a conclusion from just one statistic here.

There is a very good conclusion to be drawn from this and most other evidence, llike it or not...compliance usually works. It works quite well. If you want to get beyond that go for it, but that is still a pretty solid conclusion.

 

[David Armstrong]

Come on now. You're upset because I DID examine your "evidence", not because I'm unwilling to.

Come on now. I'm not upset at all, but let's be honest---you haven't read the material I suggested. In fact looking at what you posted it seems yo only read one article. I'm glad that people examine the evidence, I wish they would do more of it. I wish more would also examine it with an open mind.

You, on the other hand, clearly have thought about that issue and yet chose to make a point of it when it suited your argument and ignore it when it didn't.

I don't think I ignored it at all. In case it wasn't clear: NO bit of data should be considered as a stand-alone proof when there is conflicting data. The same standards should be used on ALL studies. What is problematic in one study should be considered problematic in another study if used the same way.

Since the wet noodle/Swahili nursery rhyme works most of the time (51% of the time), by your standard we can stop looking at the data.

No. Nowhere have I even come close to suggesting that one should EVER stop looking at the data. I always suggest looking at all the data, if for no other reason it might help you understand the one piece of data in relationship to the larger pool of information.

Since it works most of the time it should be the primary strategy.

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. To stick with your numbers, I would not suggest as a primary strategy something that worked 51% of the time if it also guaranteed catastrophic failure anytime it did not work because it prevented any modification or change in response to changing conditions. I might prefer something that only works 30% of the time but allow a follow-up response that would also work 30% of the time. It's the difference between "what single option is the best bet" and "what strategy gives me the greatest chance of winning in the end." Compliance gives you the greatest chance of avoiding injury AND leaves other options open should the situation change.

The fact that something works most of the time does NOT indicate that it is the best strategy or that it should be the primary strategy. One must also examine the other available strategies to see if they work MORE often.

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.

Perhaps now you understand why I feel it's so important to see the study data.

And perhaps you understand why I feel it is so important to see all those things that go into the study besides just the data.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally posted by David Armstrong:

For most crimes and in most sitauations, compliance is the way to bet.

Originally posted by David Armstrong:

Just as I have never said compliance is the BEST strategy.

This is just too funny.

 

[David Armstrong]

I think it overbroad to claim that "the hypocrisy" is fully exposed.

We'll disagree. When someone asks for studies, then subjects them to a standard of proof that they do not require of they studies they like, it is hypocritical, IMO.

On the other hand, peer reviewed studies from the anti-gun side reveal purposeful exclusive choices when selecting data (Kellerman, Cook, Ludwig, Bogus) - aka "cherry picking", serious flaws in their data model (Bogus, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, Wintemute), basing conclusions on non-correlative data (Kellerman, Hemenway, Cook, Ludwig, Wintemute) and omitting relevant facts or other studies (most).

While I tend to be rather Libertarian-style pro-gun philosophically, it seems both sides have engaged in more than a little questionable behavior of various types, and we could certainly trade lists. Of course, then we could get into discussing which peer reviews were good and bad, which reviewers had known biases, and all that stuff. And in their defense, many (on both sides) have seen their findings distorted and twisted to provide "proof" of something the study was never designed to do. Klecks's "fight back" findings are a good example. Yes, fighting back with a gun works to reduce injury during a robbery. That does not mean "getting into a gunfight with a robber who also has a gun tends to reduce injury." The data he used didn't control for that and he doesn't offer that as a conclusion. But a lot of folks present it that way.

 

[nobody_special]

Bzzzt...double wrong. You are able to draw a very good conclusion. Compliance works 87% of the time.

First, that's not a conclusion, that's a statistic. Second, that's not the conclusion you are advocating:

compliance is the best initial strategy and should be the default position

To demonstrate that compliance is the "best initial strategy" and "default position," you need to show that it's better than other strategies. You haven't done that. The fact that it works 87% of the time doesn't matter, if other initial strategies work even more often.

 

[David Armstrong]

First, that's not a conclusion, that's a statistic.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the fact that there are other forms of statistics than just predictive stats.

Second, that's not the conclusion you are advocating:

I'm not advocating any conclusion. I'm not sure if it is even possible to advocate a conclusion?? I am advocating one use established data to help them decide what response will cause them the least amount of loss of their resources.

To demonstrate that compliance is the "best initial strategy" and "default position," you need to show that it's better than other strategies. You haven't done that. The fact that it works 87% of the time doesn't matter, if other initial strategies work even more often.

Fine. If you can find a response that the FBI says works (recognizing Bill's excellent point that the concept of "works" can be interpreted in different ways) more than 87% of the time, let us know. When you do that then we can discuss if there is anything better than that.

 

[nobody_special]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the fact that there are other forms of statistics than just predictive stats.

As a self-professed academic, I'd expect you to understand the difference between data and analysis. Compliance being 87% likely to result in a favorable outcome (no injury) is a statistic; a fact. It says nothing about whether or not compliance is the best option, because there is no information about the likelihood of injury due to other actions. If you present a situation where I'm 13% likely to be injured if I comply, frankly I'd start asking about alternatives, because that does not sound good to me.

I'm not advocating any conclusion.

Well, sometimes you are, and sometimes you aren't... often in the same post. For example, in post #47:

Like it or not, even the FBI data is pro-compliance.... There is a reason virtually every LE agency tells its officers to comply during armed robberies as the default option. For most crimes and in most sitauations, compliance is the way to bet.... the smart money is going to bet on compliance to start the game.

In post #52, regarding compliance:

I said it is the best bet

As Tennesee Gentleman pointed out, you're hedging that in Post #54:

Just as I have never said compliance is the BEST strategy. I have said compliance is the best initial strategy and should be the default position.

This is where I have a problem. See, in post #8 you said:

...compliance seems to give a pretty good result.

And that's fine, if you think a 13% chance of injury is good. 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.

If you can find a response that the FBI says works (recognizing Bill's excellent point that the concept of "works" can be interpreted in different ways) more than 87% of the time, let us know. When you do that then we can discuss if there is anything better than that.

You're the one making a claim here... you need to back it up.

To make an extreme example (and a somewhat obscure reference to Firefly), if I could kill someone with my brain D), then compliance would likely not be my best initial choice. IOW, if I had some way to take them by surprise, violent resistance may be an option that results in my being injured less than 13% of the time.

If the criminals who rob people use an unloaded or non-functional weapon 85% of the time, then it's quite likely that immediate, violent resistance will lead to a better outcome than compliance. (I pulled that number out of my hat... not saying this is the case, just demonstrating that the 87% compliance statistic does not imply that compliance is the best initial option.)

I personally tend to agree with Pax's analysis, and Dwight55 and Glenn E. Meyer's posts from the first page. I think you're in agreement with that. But the claim that compliance is the "best initial strategy" is, so far, unsubstantiated, as you essentially admitted in post #37.

 

[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/content/abstract/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]

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/fallacies/burden-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/creationism/fallacies.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/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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]

Slander

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.