active compliance more likely to get you killed?

[David Armstrong]

David: You mentioned a list of studies you recommended reading? For the life of me I cant find it.

Here are some I mentioned in this thread. I've pointed out others in other threads on this type of topic that you should be able find with a search engine.
>>Many studies, multiple volumes of material, that is how one learns about this stuff. You want to see about some of the problems with Klecks work? Try Cook and Ludwig's report to the National Institute of Justice, 1997, summarized in the Research in Brief "Guns In America: National Survey on Private ownership and Use of Firearms." You want research on why criminals use violence in robberies and such? Read Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth “Crimes of Convenience” 1996. Want some comparisons of the level of violence and injury during robberies? Go through Lance K. Stell's “The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring, 2004.<<
You can also do like Glenn said earlier on, and use Google scholar search for some guidance.

 

[David Armstrong]

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.

But once proof is provided there is no obligation to provide more proof, or to continue examining all possible alternative solutions. Those who challenge the proof have the obligation to provide the evidence for the challenge. Again, I note that so far nobody has provided anything that indicates any alternative that works better than compliance as the primary responce.

YOU made those claims.

Yes, and I provided support for those claims. Support which, AFAIK, nobody has countered with anything other than some version of "well, there may be something else out there so what you say doesn't count." Again, John, how about holding yourself and some other folk up to the same standard you seem to think I should meet?

I demonstrated with a very simple example how that statement was false.

No John, you didn't, and I explained why. An explanation that you have failed to show any problems with, BTW. See, there is a "proof" obligation on your part also that you keep ignoring, and that is when you assert a claim you have an obligation to prove it, and when you offer an example that is shown to be defective you then have an obligation to show why the argument against it is not valid.

Besides the fact that you have not provided evidence that supports this claim,....

Once again, John, you are making a dishonest statement. Evidence has been provided and that evidence does support the claim. You may not like the evidence but to say it has not been provided is just plain false.

I have been exclusively concerned with minimizing the probability of injury to the victim.

That's nice, but that is only one small part of the discussion. I tend to look at overall loss, of which injury is a part, sometimes a small part. That is why one needs to look at the total picture.

We agree, but only because you contradicted yourself.

Now it appears you have trouble understanding English. "Should" is not the same as "shall."

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.

No John, you are simply incorrect. It is not a mattter of a difference of opinion, the facts are clear and they do not support your position.

It is neither pro- nor anti-compliant, it merely provides a probability based on statistical data.

And that probability indicates that compliance will lead to no physical injury 87% of the time.

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.

But there is other data. I know you keep denying it, but if you'd quit arguing for the sake of argument and go do a little reading and research you might actually learn something about this so you could argue from a position of knowledge.

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.

Perhaps you will share with us your statistical background, John, so we can compare our knowledge, skills, and experience in the fields of research design, statistics, and analysis. I find it distressing and confusing that it is necessary to explain how to interpret basic statistics to a person over and over when that person obviously has no idea what they are talking about but refuses to admit it.
But that is what happens every time we get into this sort of stuff, just as I pointed out last time. We have now spent a large amount of time discussing who should have to prove what, whether evidence should be looked at or not, what different stats mean, whether one interpretation of a stat is right or another one is right, and all this stuff that has little or no bearing on the OP. I'll also point out that despite many requests for cites to the claims I have made you apparently still have not read them when given, with one possible exception.

 

[Corn dodger]

How about a dash of common sense?

Maybe I can make this a bit more simple. John Wayne said in one of his movies, "Then load six if your insides tells ya." All this data and stats and what not. What we say we are going to do, or think we are going to do, may not be what we do at all when we are dropped in the frying pan and the heat is turned up. Unless any of you folks have been in a real "jam" then it's all theory. My bet is that none of you will be doing the math on percentages when your looking down the bore of a .45. Maybe, just maybe, listening to what "your insides tells ya," to do and exactly when to do it, might be best. It might be that you have a lot more....or a lot less courage than you ever thought.

 

[vox rationis]

Absolute compliance might statistically be associated with not being harmed 87% of the time, but the problem is that one's life then becomes a commodity that is completely controlled by the criminal, to do with as he pleases.

And I'd say that it is up to each individual to decide whether or not he/she sees such a gross violation of one's human rights as acceptable or not.

If one decides to not let the criminal be the sole decision maker regarding their living or dying, then I could see how some may use initial compliance as tactical subterfuge, used to gain the upper hand and, with some luck, neutralize the threat. Much in the way that brilliant and brave Marine did, in the story cited above. May God bless that man as he probably saved quite a few lives that day.

 

[David Armstrong]

Sometimes you just get tired of the nonsense. I’m sure that some here will find fault with these findings, so be it. But the weight of the evidence is pretty clear:

In reference to defense acts in violent crimes: 1/5 of victims who defended themselves with a firearm suffered an injury. 1/2 of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon were injured. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.

Robberies in which the offender attacked without prior threat constituted only 36 percent of robberies, but caused 66% of all serious injuries. Robberies in which the offender did not immediately attack, even though a greater percentage of actual attacks (64% vs. 36%) saw a lower rate of injury and less severe injuries. Victims who defended themselves against offenders armed with guns were more likely to be injured than those who took no actions during the crime. Across all weapon types, the most dangerous actions for victims were attacking, threatening, or resisting the offender. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995.

Even though a weapon, most commonly a firearm, is used in 83% of all carjacking, injury to the victim is rare, with most victim not injured and only 4% suffering serious injury. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999.

 

[JohnKSa]

But there is other data. I know you keep denying it...

Come on David, a person who claims to create arguments that hang on the difference in meaning between 'shall' and 'should' certainly understands how the word "if" modifies a following sentence.

So you know that I didn't deny the data existed, because you know that I said that "if it didn't one couldn't make the assessment" I didn't say "since it doesn't one can't make the assessment". The point being, of course, that in order to support your assessment, the other data needed to be forthcoming.

I'm not going to grind through the balance of your "response" unravelling the other similar semantics games contained therein, since they're sufficiently blatant as to be apparent to anyone who takes the time to read carefully.

I will, however, draw the readers' attention, not without some amusement, to the obvious contradiction between your repeated, emphatic, assertions throughout this thread that you have already provided supporting data and your last post in which you finally make an attempt to provide supporting data.

...the weight of the evidence is pretty clear:

In reference to defense acts in violent crimes: 1/5 of victims who defended themselves with a firearm suffered an injury. 1/2 of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon were injured. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.

Great, now that we have some actual study data to work from we can actually get somewhere.

I assume you are intending these statistics to be compared to the 87% figure for compliance that the FBI provides. On the surface, the 80% chance (four fifths chance) for remaining uninjured if you resist violent crime with a firearm seems to indicate that resisting with a firearm is more likely to result in injury than compliance. However, this particular BJS statistic is taken across all violent crime including rape & assault. So those numbers include crimes in which the express intent of the offender is, by definition, to injure the defender whereas the FBI statistics specifically focused on robberies. You yourself have made the point more than once that robbers don't usually want to hurt their victims and offender intent certainly plays a part in the likelihood of a victim to be injured. As if that weren't plain enough, the BJS states that explicitly in the paragraph you appear to have quoted from.

Here's the entire paragraph from the BJS report: "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims' injury outcomes."

Therefore while this is interesting data it can not be directly compared with the FBI statistics that specifically relate to armed robbery to establish that compliance is a better initial/default strategy against armed robbery. Again, it's surprising that, given your background dealing with and interpreting study data & statistics, you didn't see this immediately. Or perhaps you did and were hoping no one else would take note. Either way the result is the same.

Can you provide a link and point out the portion of the BJS report that contains the statistics you're summarizing as "Victims who defended themselves against offenders armed with guns were more likely to be injured than those who took no actions during the crime."? I can't seem to locate the applicable report on the BJS website.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by David Armstrong

In reference to defense acts in violent crimes: 1/5 of victims who defended themselves with a firearm suffered an injury. 1/2 of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon were injured. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.

Call me crazy but that statistic seems to indicate that if you resist with a firearm then you have a 80% chance of not being injured? That seems like pretty good odds to me to justify resisting if you are armed. Another example of David saying one thing and then showing statistics that say another.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong
But once proof is provided there is no obligation to provide more proof,

Originally Posted by David Armstrong
And thus we have yet another reason why providing citations and sources is usually a complete waste of time.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong But there is other data. I know you keep denying it, but if you'd quit arguing for the sake of argument and go do a little reading and research you might actually learn something about this so you could argue from a position of knowledge.

Where is the data? What is the data? If you claim that why not provide a link to it and the specific parts? You base all ofyour arguments on what you claim studies say but will not show the evidence. Your position is :Just take my word for it or go look it up yourself.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Again, I don't think one can advocate conclusions.

Originally Posted by David Armstrong I have said compliance is the best initial strategy and should be the default position....Bzzzt...double wrong. You are able to draw a very good conclusion. Compliance works 87% of the time.

More contradictions.

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.

And yet in almost every post a study is referred to by David or his conclusion about a study is defended.

Translation: Don't question what I say because it is the truth.

 

[garryc]

Being with these scum bags for the last 16 years has taught me one thing. The last thing you want is to be at their mercy.

For example, some years ago a woman was in a local mal parking lot. She was abducted. Apparently she got in a van without making any commotion that would draw attention. She apparently submitted and was taken away. She was found after being raped brutally and repetitively. They tortured her by burning her with cigarettes. They then killed her by inserting a pistol in her vagina and shooting her. That is what you risk by submitting.

As a side note;
The kid that shot her got convicted. He went to Max security at Lucasville. Apparently it did not go well for him, I'll let your imagination take over at that point. He was sent to OSP where he hung himself. I weep with sadness over that (snicker).

 

[Capt. Charlie]

Enough!

I just got the heads-up from Pax on this one, but even so, I was shocked to see how two senior members took this down to gutter level.

David and TG, I don't normally admonish in public, but this has gone on long enough that other members might believe that this kind of behavior is acceptable at TFL.

It isn't.

It's obvious there's a problem between you two. It won't become TFL's problem. Either take it to PM or learn what the ignore button is for. Do neither and you can kiss your TFL memberships goodbye. Consider this a formal and final warning.

Closed.