How do you react?

[JohnKSa]

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. And although I spend a good deal of time on TFL, I still don't have time to read everything that's posted.

A search of your posts including the word "statistics" didn't turn up anything relevant. The closest thing I could find was a mention of the NCVS in a post that you made a year ago in a thread that I didn't participate in. There was no link to any data nor any specific reference to the particular data on the NCVS you were referring to.

So, let me try this again. Please provide a link to the controlled statistics you mentioned earlier. Specifically, these would be the statistics that you said demonstrated that Kleck's study results are dangerously misleading.

 

[Socrates]

The problem with such situations is you are reacting, rather then planning, using tactics, and training, and proactively going after the threat, or, actively retreating, gaining a tactical advantage, cover, or barrier in the situation.

I firmly believe that action that does not fit the bad guys expectation can throw them off their plan, and, make them terminate their endeavor early. The point of tactics and training is to throw the bad guys out of their comfort zone, and playing on their fear, forcing them to flee.

I believe that bad guys are prone to reacting to stimulus in a manner for self-preservation, when the situation doesn't work out the way they plan. In other words, it's kind of like the mouse throwing the cat off it's timing, and attacking it while it's off balance...

Much as I hate to use the example: There is a video someone linked to in a discussion about gang members now being military trained. One gang member, outside a convience store, was out to shoot police. By actively attacking, not retreating, he threw the police off their game, as he had been taught by the Marines, or armed forces. I believe similar tactics can be used in such situations to stop the bad guys. I for one, do not really like putting my life at the mercy of an armed robber, just because my active defense of my life MIGHT put others at risk...

 

[DWFan]

David Armstrong.....
Quote:
You said that robbers rarely injure their victims and used that as your rationale for compliance.
Your response:
Whoa. I do not suggest compliance. I suggest a full understanding of the facts and as much knowledge as possible to be used to decide what is the course of action that minimizes your loss of resources. Sometimes that might be compliance, sometimes that might be a full-scale attack, sometimes it might be a bit of deception and trickery, sometimes it might be something else.

Double talk. "Whoa. I do not suggest compliance" and "Sometimes that might be compliance" directly contradict each other.

Quote:
Like I said, I want to be getting the FIRST and ONLY shots off.
Your response:
I would want that too. However, I would suggest it is rather questionable to plan for a best case scenario given that rarely works out.

Isn't the "best case scenario" what you propose with your "I suggest a full understanding of the facts and as much knowledge as possible to be used to decide what is the course of action that minimizes your loss of resources."? Planning is always questionable when your actions depend completely on the anticipated actions of a total stranger; especially in a stressful situation. There is such a thing as over-thinking a situation before taking action. You would wait until they escalate to take action? What if the first person they shoot is you? If it is someone else, do you accept partial responsibility for their death if you have the means to prevent it?

Quote:
The only point I see you making is a person should trust that the criminal is not willing to take a life even though they are using a firearm to commit a crime...the basic sheeple philosophy of do nothing and hope for the best.
Your response:
Then you have obviously missed the point, as nowhere do I say one should trust the criminal for much of anything.

Being in compliance with someone IS putting your trust in them, however reluctantly it's done. Even if that compliance is being done while covertly trying to get a tactical advantage before taking action, it is still compliance. It is still trusting the criminal not to shoot so long as you appear to follow instruction. In the story I provided the link to, it was surmissed by the police that the reason the victims willingly walked into the freezer was that they "trusted" that Stafford was only going to lock them up so a clean getaway could be made. They wound up being killed execution-style.

Quote:
But if/when the opportunity presents itself (you have the tactical advantage), I believe you should act rather than allow them to control the situation.
Your response:
And I believe that choosing to act does not necessarily mean you are in control of the situation, nor does sitting back prepared to respond if needed mean they are in control.

By definition, if someone is directing the situation and all others involved are following that direction without resistance, they are in control.

Quote:
If a gunfight is going to break out, then I want to be the guy starting it.
Your response:
And there is the key. If you do not start it, there probably won't be one at all.

The operative word here is "probably". Is it enough of a probability to stake your life, and the lives of others, on? Is it enough to be able to claim to survivors and the police, if someone is injured or killed, that you didn't take action because you were playing the odds? By inaction you are placing your trust in the bet that this is not the "one in 400" situation that will result in your, and others, deaths. To put it in perspective, the 1 in 400 odds you quote may sound like a good thing but in reality they are not far from the odds of having a full house in hand of poker.

Quote:
You talk of what happens if your actions trigger the shooting of an innocent bystander. I question what happens if the robbers, emboldened by their success, go to the next restaurant and murder everyone there.
Your response:
Again we see a basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works. If you are having success without killing, why change your M.O. to make it harder/worse on you?

Why indeed? Why commit an armed robbery to begin with? Thieves do not escalate their actions? I'm fairly sure most robbers don't START with armed robbery, but with shop lifting, petty theft and possibly breaking and entering before "graduating" to the higher level of armed robbery and robbery/homicide.
And just where on that chain of escalation are the individuals holding you at gunpoint? What ability gives you the insight to determine what their motives are? As far as my "basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works", is it this same insight that gives you the ability to know MY level of knowledge or personal experience?

 

[Socrates]

What's the stat on guys in the joint being high, or drunk when they commit their crime? 85-95%? I'm sorry, but, if I can at all help it, I'm going to rely on the fact that I'm sober, and, that my shooting ability will exceed that of a drunk robber. If the best shot in a gun battle usually, or always wins, I'll take that bet, and, bet on the high statistic of substance abuse to work in my favor...

 

[JohnKSa]

What's the stat on guys in the joint being high, or drunk when they commit their crime? 85-95%?

I've never seen that statistic but I agree that such information would be relevant, particularly in attempting to assess whether or not the criminal could be expected to behave rationally. Could you provide a link?

 

[Socrates]

Don't have a link on that one, just a year in the DA's office, and an educated guess. LEO's might be able to provide better evidence, since they are the arresting officers...

 

[alloy]

hopefully i wouldnt be first, i guess thats a good reason not to sit at the counter by the register any more. they can have my wallet and watch, but since i have the gun according to the original question...i cant see a good way to react to any further demands for property because of the gun. i dont feel i can comply with him, because i dont know how that is going to fly. anything beyond the freely given watch and wallet would be a personal threat, i would hope i was prepared for that and had already had time to have the gun under the table.

evidently...carrying a gun into waffle house, might cause the necessity for using the gun...in yet another brain twisting what-if chicken/egg scenario.

i dont even like waffles...

 

[David Armstrong]

Specifically, these would be the statistics that you said demonstrated that Kleck's study results are dangerously misleading.

This is why I hate to even play this game, John. NOWHERE did I say anything about Kleck's study results being dangerously misleading. Therefore it will be pretty hard to provide a link to stats that say something that I never said. Kleck's work is not misleading, it is not dangerous, it needs to be understood. Just like the "43 times more dangerous" stat. One needs to understand the context in order to understand the results. For example, the victimization data used is based on a size of less than 10 sample cases. Given other data, it is fair to assume that of that 10, about 5 helped the situation (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002 Statistical Tables). One shouldn't need any stats to support the idea that using a gun against an unarmed opponent is likely to give better results than using a gun against an opponent who also has a gun.

But here, a very specific cite you can go look up, read the info, and so on. "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.

 

[David Armstrong]

Double talk. "Whoa. I do not suggest compliance" and "Sometimes that might be compliance" directly contradict each other.

Nonsense. Suggesting that one should try to understand a situation, and with that understanding choose among a number of alternatives, in no way is suggesting a particular course of action.

Isn't the "best case scenario" what you propose with your "I suggest a full understanding of the facts and as much knowledge as possible to be used to decide what is the course of action that minimizes your loss of resources."?

I wouild suggest that is quite a bit different than thinking that not only am I going to be able to get the first shot off in a gunfight, but also that I will be such a fantastic dealer of death that all my shots will go exactly where I want them, the BGs will be unable to react.respond, etc.

You would wait until they escalate to take action?

Yes. Given that the huge number of robberies end without anybody being hurt, I see no reason to turn a simple robbery into a gunfight without additional indicators.

Being in compliance with someone IS putting your trust in them, however reluctantly it's done.

Again, nonsense. You keep taking terms that mean different things and trying to say they are the same. Compliance is not trust.

By definition, if someone is directing the situation and all others involved are following that direction without resistance, they are in control.

Sorry, but that is just silly. If people choose to follow directions based on their own self-interest it doesn't mean the other person is in control, it means the people are choosing to maximize their own interests. If the BG asks me for my billfold and I give it to him, knowing that I could probably kill him if I decided to do so, I'm following directions but he is not in control.

The operative word here is "probably". Is it enough of a probability to stake your life, and the lives of others, on?

Yes, it is. 400 to 1 is pretty good odds. They are quite a bit better than the odds of getting through a gunfight without injury, I would suggest. And again, you always have the option of escalating your response if needed. Not starting a gunfight is very different from not fighting at all.

To put it in perspective, the 1 in 400 odds you quote may sound like a good thing but in reality they are not far from the odds of having a full house in hand of poker.

To keep it in perspective, will you bet me $500 a hand, for 10 hands of poker, that you will draw a full house?

Why commit an armed robbery to begin with?

Generally to get money, and as long as that goal is met the criminal goes on about his business. When that goal is blocked they resort to other tactics.

Thieves do not escalate their actions?

Not without reason. As long as a tactic is working they tend to stay with that tactic.

And just where on that chain of escalation are the individuals holding you at gunpoint?

Depends. Are they holding you at gunpoint as a means of intimidation to obtain compliance? Or are they indicating there is some other motive?

As far as my "basic failure to understand how the criminal mind works", is it this same insight that gives you the ability to know MY level of knowledge or personal experience?

I do not need to know your level of knowledge or personal experience to make a comment based on what you have posted.

I'm going to quote Scattergun Bob from another thread, because it seems so appropriate:
"Preemptive strikes, by white knights saving the day seem a correct line of action. In reality they are folly and very seldom are the correct action."
Doesn't mean they are never correct, doesn't mean you should never use them, but they seldom are the correct action.

 

[buzz_knox]

Statistically, there is no reason to carry a gun as the odds of getting attacked on the street is fairly low.

Statistically, there is no reason to own ammunition, as the odds of having to actually shoot someone are even lower than

Statistically, those who live their lives based on statistics are the ones that Mr. Murphy loves playing with the most. (The last can't be verified stastically but only anecdotally).

 

[David Armstrong]

Statistically, those who live their lives based on statistics are the ones that Mr. Murphy loves playing with the most.

Actually, most of us live our lives based on statistics. Few realize how much of that goes on, and sadly many of us fail to get the information that would allow us to most accurately determine what the stats are and how to use them.

 

[tirvin73]

alloy

You may want to think about WHERE you WOULD want to sit in any situation. Can you see the door? Can you tell where cover is? Is that cover or concealment? Are there any other ways in or out? What should family members do in a situation like this. These are things you may want to think about before something happens. Remember where these places are when you return. (Provided the services are good!?)

If you follow The Guru and his principals, Condition Orange is not a state you "walk around in". Orange is an identified threat that may move you to Red. Red is the state of mind that you now may have to GO.If the decision to GO is made,any other thoughts from that point on should fall back on your training.

Remember,this is the age of the "common man" or better still, the age of the "wimps"

 

[hogdogs]

My wife thinks it strange that I actually look to see if the restaurant tables are on a base or mounted to the wall. I prefer bases as I can overturn the table for either cover or a startling affect.
Those mounted tables serve no purpose other than allowing me to shovel grub into my mouth with both hands!
Every little detail is important and should be observed before needed and value vs. risk weighed out... A concealed handgun is but one tool in the war against thug/terrorists. I never have a handgun on me these days but i am always possessing lethal weapons with more devices ready to be put into action all around me.
Brent

 

[buzz_knox]

Actually, most of us live our lives based on statistics. Few realize how much of that goes on, and sadly many of us fail to get the information that would allow us to most accurately determine what the stats are and how to use them.

Some do. The smart ones plan for the unexpected so if the statistics go sideways, they have a plan and the tools for dealing with it.

The problem is that most people who excessively cite to statistics cause, intentionally or intentionally, complacency and "it won't happen to me" in others. Crap always happens to the other guy, and people forget that when two or more people are involved in a conversation, the "other guy" might very well be involved in said conversation.

As someone who's had 1 in a million things happen to me or those close to me, I fully expect that the statistical average applies to those other than me, and I plan accordingly. When things go wrong, I'm usually prepared. When things go right, I'm always happily surprised.

 

[Hondo11]

Quote From Alloy:

hopefully i wouldnt be first, i guess thats a good reason not to sit at the counter by the register any more. they can have my wallet and watch, but since i have the gun according to the original question...i cant see a good way to react to any further demands for property because of the gun. i dont feel i can comply with him, because i dont know how that is going to fly. anything beyond the freely given watch and wallet would be a personal threat, i would hope i was prepared for that and had already had time to have the gun under the table.

evidently...carrying a gun into waffle house, might cause the necessity for using the gun...in yet another brain twisting what-if chicken/egg scenario.

The brain twisting part is trying to understand the logic behind your thought process. Someone pointing a gun at you and demanding your wallet and watch is not a personal threat? The fact that he is holding the gun is an implied intent to use it to force you to comply (or use it if you don't comply...however you want to word it.) He's saying without saying, "Give me the wallet and the watch or I'll shoot you with this gun in my hand, which I have pointed at your face." Otherwise, he wouldn't be using a gun. He'd just walk in and say, "Give me your wallet and watch", and then leave if you didn't comply.

Again, at what point do you decide that you can now defend yourself? AFTER he's already shot you?

 

[David Armstrong]

Some do.

No. we all do, to some extent or another. Most just fail to realize how much of it goes on.

The smart ones plan for the unexpected so if the statistics go sideways, they have a plan and the tools for dealing with it.

The smart ones understand the odds so they can determine what is worth planning for and what isn't.

The problem is that most people who excessively cite to statistics cause, intentionally or intentionally, complacency and "it won't happen to me" in others.

So we should let people base decisions on bad information?? I realize there are some folks out there that think Rambo is a training film, but most of us know better. I think Glenn has pointed out a few times that there is something inherent in shooters and gunowners that causes them to believe lack of information is better than having information.

....fully expect that the statistical average applies to those other than me, and I plan accordingly.

And you are using statistics when you make that plan.

 

[David Armstrong]

Again, at what point do you decide that you can now defend yourself? AFTER he's already shot you?

There is a whole lot of territory between "2 guys with guns rob waffle house" and "they have shot you." There is no point at which you decide. There are an infinite number of points, based on an amazingly large number of factors. And it is not so much an issue of if you CAN defend yourself, it is more SHOULD you defend yourself and HOW you will defend yourself.

 

[alloy]

"Someone pointing a gun at you and demanding your wallet and watch is not a personal threat?"

well hondo11, this is the i-net...so i dont know if he points the gun at me or just says everyone throw your stuff in the sack while someone else is waiving a gun around from the front door... 20 feet away with 20 folks in between. at this point, i also dont really know if my two daughters are sitting across the booth from me or beside me, and i dont know if i brought the derringer or a .45 that day. lot of ifs. but chances are...i would comply and until i see something to make me think the situation is escalating. regardless..the gun would be under the table and out. not starting a free-for-all in waffle house with a .32 if the robbers seem composed. people with years of tactical or real life experience no doubt would act differently....but reading the first post that started this interesting thread...."no one was injured".

so i quit sitting at the counters today. thats why im here. because a small tip or realization, might increase my odds tenfold when it sticks. shooting the skull-cap off an armed robber with his arm around a hostage might not be my level of comfort....but i only got ayoobs front sight picture yesterday and coopers states two days ago. next week im rambo.

 

[tirvin73]

how you will defend yourself...... until there is no longer a threat.

should you defend yourself......... two armed men robbing patrons... signs point to "yes"


can you defend yourself......... PRACTICE! PRACTICE! PRACTICE! You can't solve a problem if you don't know there is one.

Just because you own a firearm does not mean you are safe, you can practice on your own but there are a lot of people willing to teach. Learn.

 

[Ohio Rusty]

To answer Zippy's question back about page 3 of the thread .... If they look into my fake wallet, notice the bills aren't real and focus their attention on me, then so much the better. I would rather them focus on me giving me a better opportunity to shoot if I would have to. That might put bystanders in less harms way.
When ever I go into places to shop, get gas, eat, I'm always running scenario's in my head. I case the place and notice what doors are near me for escape purposes (including smoke and fire issues), what kind of cover is available if I have to cover and fire from a static position, etc. If there is a robbery far across the room at the cash register, I certainly wouldn't charge across the room to confront the robber. If the robber started going table to table, that is a different scenario all together. I guess I really don't consider myself 'in danger' until the threat comes close to me. At that point the scenario changes, and my reaction to the threat changes also.
The one scenario that I would definitely take action would be having my wife or grandson with me. I would not want to have either of them taken hostage and me not do anything. They might wind up shot or dead, and I would have a hard time forgiving myself. When they are with me, I'm less apt to just hand over the money, and more apt to rapidly, in successive shots, hand over the copper jacketed lead. Different environments produce different scenarios on what I would/will do. It's not my responsibility to protect all the other shoppers, donut eaters or the money and goods owned by the store during the commision of a theft or robbery. That is the responsibility of a hired security officer or commissioned peace officer.
It *IS* my responsibility to protect my family, and that may require escalation of force. That in my mind is justifiable. I'm prepared at a moments notice to do that for my family. Different scenario's will produce different results and/or actions from me. And if I 'accidently' have my gun in an eatery or store that doesn't allow me to have a gun and something happens..... well ..... at least I'm the one still alive to pay the trespassing fine. That is Ok with me.
Ohio Rusty ><>