This does not address the issue. It CAN reduce, it MIGHT increase? That's not what you said, and if that HAD been what you said I would never have responded at all because that statement is so subjective and so lacking in objective metric as to be essentially meaningless."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."
This is double-talk. You know very well what I'm referring to and I am equally well aware of what you said. You stated that:David Armstrong said: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.
I want to know how much higher the "injury rates seem to go" and also how much higher the "severity of the injuries goes".David Armstrong said:That has become one of those horribly mis-leading facts, sort of like the antis "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill a friend or family member" thing. Yes, if you resist with a firearm you have a better chance of remaining uninjured--assuming all violent crimes including those where the BG is not armed with a gun (the majority of them, BTW). When controlled for that factor, injury rates seem to go higher and the severity of the injuries also goes higher.
We're talking about information that would be used in making life & death decisions here. If you have the information provide it.