Update on Burger King shooting

[David Armstrong]

I don't have links, folks. I have books. I have magazines. I have research articles. I can tell you that:

• Across all weapon types, the most dangerous actions for victims were attacking, threatening, or resisting the offender. That data is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995 report.
  
  
• That gun-armed robbers are less likely to inflict injury on their victims than unarmed robbers or robbers armed with other weapons is consistent with their preferring submission to inflicting injury. That is the findings from Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
  
  
• All of the available evidence indicates that the most common reasons for the actual use of violence during a robbery are victims resisting, making sudden moves, or otherwise hindering the completion of the robbery. Those findings come from Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996.
  
  
• The highest fatality rate in robberies occurs when the victim resists and the robber has a gun. That is from Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997. One can also see also Block, Patterns of Change in Chicago Homicides, and Cook, Robbery Violence.

There may be links to some of this stuff out there, but I'm certainly not going to spend my time looking for them. I do find it rather sad that we as a society have reeached a point where someone's honesty is questioned unless the computer backs them up.

 

[MLeake]

To David Armstrong

I don't know that anybody is questioning your honesty. Personally, I don't know you, and therefore can't really have an informed opinion.

Well, I could have an informed opinion if you actually cited your sources more regularly, so I could compare your representations of studies with what they said. However, I can't do that easily. Still, I have no reason to impugn your integrity.

That said, I have no reason to believe in your analyses, either, if I don't know your methods, your source materials, your background, and any consistent biases you might have.

It does concern me that you are so loath to provide citations and links. That does send up a warning flag.

 

[David Armstrong]

No, you have not.

As an example: "Go read Ayoob's books" is not the same thing as, "On page 68 of In the Gravest Extreme, Ayoob wrote, '...'"

Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.

(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway. What you've done is more like this: "Go read every book ever categorized within XXX.xx of the Dewey Decimal System, then we can talk.")

That is simply not true, Pax. Here are citations, all of which have been previously given by me at various times here on TFL:
Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
See also
Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker, “Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture.” 1997.
Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988
Jody Miller, “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 1998.
Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996
Wright and Decker, Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. 1997.
Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997.
Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. 1997.

 

[pax]

David,

Thanks. That's the sort of thing that's more helpful.

Re the 1995 Bureau of Justice statistics, did they break it down further into armed vs. unarmed resistance?

Re the second study, I note it's not quite germane to the question at hand -- unless you or someone else is advocating the shooting of unarmed robbers, which would definitely open a can of worms big enough for another thread.

Re the third and fourth, same question: did they break it down to armed vs unarmed resistance? The two are not the same thing, after all.

I vaguely remember encountering a study some time back (perhaps in one of my books about women's self-defense) which noted that although the statistics showed a close correlation between women fighting back and women getting hurt, a closer look at those same statistics showed that the majority of women who chose to fight back did so only after the assailant harmed them, and not before. Correlation vs causation ...

pax

 

[pax]

That is simply not true, Pax. Here are citations, all of which have been previously given by me at various times here on TFL:
Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
See also
Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker, “Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture.” 1997.
Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988
Jody Miller, “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 1998.
Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996
Wright and Decker, Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. 1997.
Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997.
Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. 1997.

*Throws hands up in the air and sighs*

David, that's EXACTLY!!! what I was complaining about!

"Go read these six or seven books and studies, which I'm not going to tell you how they're relevant or which portions might apply or anything else about them, and which I'm too busy to summarize for you ..."

Grrrrf.

pax

 

[David Armstrong]

Well, I could have an informed opinion if you actually cited your sources more regularly, so I could compare your representations of studies with what they said. However, I can't do that easily. Still, I have no reason to impugn your integrity.

Thank you. My point is that I have cited these studies, and I have cited them regularly. Lots of research does not lend itself to accurate presentation in very short forms. Kleck's "you are less likely to get hurt if you fight back with a gun" research is a great example, one that is used and misused often. Unless one reads the material one misses things like the findings are based almost exclusively on the GG having a gun and the BG not having a gun.

 

[Creature]

It is quite possible that some entirely different conclusions could be drawn from the data if the last decade was included. Crime in America changes dramatically as regional populations grow/declines, demographics change and economies fluctuate. Conclusions drawn from data from sources that are at least a decade old is, in my opinion, probably not relevant.

 

[pax]

Lots of research does not lend itself to accurate presentation in very short forms. Kleck's "you are less likely to get hurt if you fight back with a gun" research is a great example, one that is used and misused often. Unless one reads the material one misses things like the findings are based almost exclusively on the GG having a gun and the BG not having a gun.

Despite your thesis sentence, I notice that with the two simple sentences which follow it, you managed to neatly summarize Kleck's findings and explain what else you believed others should look for in those findings.

pax

 

[David Armstrong]

Re the 1995 Bureau of Justice statistics, did they break it down further into armed vs. unarmed resistance?

Will the answer matter if I don't provide a link?

Re the second study, I note it's not quite germane to the question at hand -- unless you or someone else is advocating the shooting of unarmed robbers, which would definitely open a can of worms big enough for another thread.

This is why it is good to go read some of this stuff. It is germane because it indicates the mindset of the robber, which is the issue here--why does the robber use violence? The gun increases the intimidation factor, thus providing greater compliance, which is the robber's goal....submission, not injury.

Re the third and fourth, same question: did they break it down to armed vs unarmed resistance? The two are not the same thing, after all.

While the type of resistance is not the same, the issue is the same. Resistance tends to increase the danger. That is why one needs to look at a variety of sources, not just little snips that are generally put out by folks with agendas or other things. Look at what LE advises--compliance as an initial strategy. Look at what all the security consultants advise--compliance as an initial strategy. Do all of these folks not have any idea what they are talking about?

 

[David Armstrong]

David, that's EXACTLY!!! what I was complaining about!

Pax, what you said was, "Doing the former is not conducive to discussion, and tends towards the disingenuous. Doing the latter is useful.
(And you haven't really even done the former, that I've noticed anyway....).
I have done the former, I have done it regularly.

 

[RobertRogers]

Especially if guns were involved, you will likely not get the real story from mainstream newspapers here.

 

[David Armstrong]

Conclusions drawn from data from sources that are at least a decade old is, in my opinion, probably not relevant.

If one has more recent data, please feel free to post it or cite it.

 

[pax]

David ~

Will the answer matter if I don't provide a link?

Nobody called you a liar, so knock off the poor-pitiful-me undertone, please.

Look at what LE advises--compliance as an initial strategy. Look at what all the security consultants advise--compliance as an initial strategy. Do all of these folks not have any idea what they are talking about?

Not at all. Most of this advice is given to people who aren't armed and who won't arm themselves, no matter what.

What advice would you give to an unarmed person facing an armed attacker? Is it the exact same advice you would give to someone who actually had both the tactical and the practical upper hand in the situation? Would you advise an armed and physically capable police officer surrender and submit to an unarmed suspect who asked him to do so?

Circumstances alter cases, and yet advice such as that given by LE officials to the general public is -- by nature! -- one size fits all.

pax

 

[Creature]

Despite the evidence presented so far and the statistical likelihood of unarmed compliance being far safer than armed resistance, how many of us are willing to disarm and let the law of averages dictate whether we survive an armed robbery?

I'm not.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OK, now we are talking. However, would somebody please go listen to the cites a I mentioned in post #14 if you have the bandwidth (some may be on dial up).

I will point out that Kleck's study is the ONLY study that has come to that conclusion,

Which is why I bring him up. His findings have turned a lot of things on their head in the gun world. So have John Lott's but he is more controversial. The anti-gunners don't mess with Kleck too much and I think that speaks to how good his stuff may be.

No, he is not wrong, he is discussing something different.

What is he discussing then that I am missing? He says the fighting back is better than not isn't he?

and Kleck's work does not reflect gun response versus gun-wielding bad guys.

David, are you sure he is only comparing resistance against non-gun wielding BGs? I am not saying you are wrong but that is not what I hear him saying. If you have a further cite please let me know.

Also, here is another good link where he expounds on his theories opposed by Paul Helmke of the Brady ilk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_kD6Gz7WZw I think if Kleck were only talking about fighting BGs who have no gun then wouldn't Helmke and crew bring it up? They didn't in this debate.

As I stated earlier, conventional wisdom used to say that one should not resist violent crime. Kleck looked at the data differently, controlled for a few things and came up with something different.

a closer look at those same statistics showed that the majority of women who chose to fight back did so only after the assailant harmed them, and not before. Correlation vs causation

Yes Kathy that is what Kleck discovered. The stats were showing people who resisted after they were injured and so it looked like if you resisted you would get injured. But Kleck controlled for that and found if you resisted before you were hurt the chances you would get hurt were very small.

 

[David Armstrong]

Despite your thesis sentence, I notice that with the two simple sentences which follow it, you managed to neatly summarize Kleck's findings and explain what else you believed others should look for in those findings.

No, I did not, and that is more of my point. It is not a neat summary. Note that I say it is misused. And that is only one issue to look at when you go into the research. I also have a problem, for example, with the fact that one of his data points on using the firearm for self-defense indicated they had used the firearm to defend themselves some rather strange amount, 73 times in one year IIRC.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Most of this advice is given to people who aren't armed and who won't arm themselves, no matter what.
What advice would you give to an unarmed person facing an armed attacker? Is it the exact same advice you would give to someone who actually had both the tactical and the practical upper hand in the situation? Would you advise an armed and physically capable police officer surrender and submit to an unarmed suspect who asked him to do so?

BINGO!

There seems to be a need for a new paradigm and the fact that more and more civilians are able to be armed might have an impact on older conventional wisdom.

 

[hogdogs]

To interfere with my peaceful grinding of a well made Whopper with cheese, no pickles or ketchup add mayo please... Will result in violence I wouldn't need to be armed to make the decision to end an armed robbery... Just the way I is...
Brent

 

[David Armstrong]

Nobody called you a liar, so knock off the poor-pitiful-me undertone, please.

Then do not say I have not done things that I clearly have done, please.

Not at all. Most of this advice is given to people who aren't armed and who won't arm themselves, no matter what.

It is also the advice given to those that are armed. It is also one of the reasons they recommend against arming oneself is to reduce the chance one will try to get into a shootout. NO LE agency or security consultant group I am aware of suggests shooting as the normal response to an armed robbery.

What advice would you give to an unarmed person facing an armed attacker? Is it the exact same advice you would give to someone who actually had both the tactical and the practical upper hand in the situation?

I think we are changing the situation. "Armed attacker" covers a whole lot more territory than armed robber.

Would you advise an armed and physically capable police officer surrender and submit to an unarmed suspect who asked him to do so?

If the oficer was a witness to an armed robbery, I would advise him the same that his agency has probably advised him, to sit there, be a good witness, and not to do anything that would increase the danger. Refer back to Post #15, by BikerRN, which I note nobody has commented on although it says basically the same thing I have said.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It is also one of the reasons they recommend against arming oneself is to reduce the chance one will try to get into a shootout.

David, are you saying that most LE do not want civilians to CCW? You might be right. The anti-gunners say that but you say you were LE but yet you say you teach civilian classes to CCW? Do you think we shouldn't CCW or do it but not use them. I don't understand your point.

If the oficer was a witness to an armed robbery, I would advise him the same that his agency has probably advised him, to sit there, be a good witness, and not to do anything that would increase the danger. Refer back to Post #15, by BikerRN, which I note nobody has commented on although it says basically the same thing I have said.

Yeah OK but is that what we are talking about? Observing a robbery is not the same as being robbed. The issue we face is what to do when we are robbed. Kleck says we are better off fighting back if we can so do you agree with him or not and why.