Update on Burger King shooting

[Brit]

Kathy here I am, being very polite!

[/And the participants in this forum are mostly just those type of individuals, and you have to love them.

We all can afford access to the Internet, a Computer, a chair to sit on, and food in the fridge, plus the ability to have electrical power, to run the equipment.

The above is us!

Now for a quick peek at Joe loser who walks into a small business late at night, with a stolen hand gun, a drug habit, and is not the sharpest bulb in the box, even when he has the $20.00 in his pocket, for his next crack rock, which at this moment in time, he does not!

The only control you, the CCW person has, is trigger control, you shoot him quickly, and you shoot him a lot! You can not even have any other thought, he will or will not shoot all in the store, if he wants, and you happen to be one of them.QUOTE]

The above is my true belief. The quote in blue.

It is called control, and you have not one tiny iota of control when a person appears in your midst, with a pistol, in a business, none whatsoever!

Whatever he wants to do (He/She) for instance raise pistol and shoot me! why? I have a hat on? I don't have a hat on.

I am Black/White/Indian/Short/Tall?

Marksmanship? Let me pick on Pax a moment, she shoots, has a CCW, could you hit a man sized torso, center of mass, at 5 yards, if this person was standing still? No need to answer, reference skill, and skill alone, I know the answer, yes you could.

If not one robber had ever shot a person, or group of persons in a robbery, the answer to this person with a gun, in your midst is simple, do nothing.

But as there are numerous accounts of these robbers shooting one, or a bunch, or all! Your only control is shoot them first, a lot!

And you can quote this study, and that study till you go blue, but reality is plain to see, it is sometimes stated as risk management.

The Israelis call it preemptive strikes. My nature falls back in to the Saxon' do unto others, as they would do unto you... BUT DO IT FIRST!

 

[skydiver3346]

Attn: David Armstrong

I have read each and every post on this thread. I'm sure you have as well, judging from all your many responses to the other's here on TFL.
Most people don't agree with you sir and your logic simply does not hold water (when the chips are really down). To me its too complicated.
All the "facts" that you keep quoting from your personal sources are just not what I believe as the gospel.

This is the bottom line: When and if you are personally ever placed in a situation like this, (and I hope you never are) you do what you think is best and the rest of us will do what we think is best. It is nice to say what you "think" is the best solution (confrontations with the bad guy), but no one in the world knows exactly what might happen during a robbery or personal attack. You just can't read the criminal mind and know if he is going to rob you or shoot you. You do not know what they are planning to do. You should be ready to react. To each his own, is the best response in my opinion and we all need to be prepared. Not only by carrying, but having a plan of action in the back of your mind. Each scenario has its own particular responses (too many variables) and nobody can write a book or suggest "exactly how to respond" in each situation. Remember, none of the victims started any of this, (the perps did) and we are just responding to the threat. In most cases, he who hesitates is lost. We live in a different world now, where values and respect for authority (and human life) are non existent.

 

[David Armstrong]

Not to pick nits but aren't you and yours in danger physically when a bad-intentioned BG who has a gun is robbing you or is nearby robbing another?

Not particularly. I suppose one could make a case depending on how they choose to define "bad-intentioned BG" but I (like most people) am not in that much danger during a robbery. Y'all seem to have this idea that they are violent, wild events, but that is extremely rare.

Good question! How would you know when you had an opening in these situations?:

I don't consider an opening in those situations. For me, those situations indicate the situation has changed significantly, thus the response needs to change significantly.

I am with you here BUT I could care less about the loss and danger to the BG who has put my life in jeopardy.

Same here. when I talk about minimizing loss of resources and such it is in reference to the good guys.

The police don't want ANYBODY hurt which is why when they arrest dangerous criminals they don't just shoot them down immediately without trying to take them into custody.

That is not correct, but as it is irrelevant to this issue I won't get into it unless you want to push the point.

Going back to BK and your issues with Kleck. If the guy in BK had a knife would stepping up to him with a gun be OK from your perspective?

I don't have issues with Kleck. I've talked with Gary and I've been on a panel with him. I have problems with the way some folks use/misuse his research. I do have a couple of philosophical differences about research methods, but taht is just part of the game, with different researchers considering different types of research and levels of analysis being more rigorous. And no, why would yo want to step up to him, period. Let him get finished and let everybody go on about their business. If folks want to catch BGs, go sign up for the police academy.

 

[David Armstrong]

Even with extrapolation wouldn't the % remain constant? Anyway, all these studies pretty much use extrapolation.

Well, here it is according to Kleck, not somebody who read something about what somebody wrote about what Kleck found (which is why I don't use the internet for that much serious research):
1994 NSPOF Survey
Respondents N= 2658
Victims N= 141
Gun Use by Perpetrator N= 9

So are you saying that because there is not a large number in the sampling Kleck used that we should infer that fighting back with a gun against a BG who has a gun is more likely to result in injury to us?

No. I am saying the data overwhelmingly indicates that initial compliance is the best way to minimize loss and danger. I am saying that virtually every expert in the field says not to fight back as long as it is just a robbery.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Y'all seem to have this idea that they are violent, wild events, but that is extremely rare.

Interesting. An armed robbery isn't violent? What would you call it? You seem to be saying here that an armed robbery isn't very dangerous. I have never been robbed so I don't know but it would seem when someone is threatening you with bodily harm that would be called dangerous and violent. Not sure what you are trying to say with that.

I don't consider an opening in those situations. For me, those situations indicate the situation has changed significantly, thus the response needs to change significantly

I think the term opening refers to when you will act. So, if you are armed and faced with a BG that violates one of your "I won't do rules" you just draw and shoot? Or do you wait for an opening was my question and what determines that.

I have problems with the way some folks use/misuse his research.

What do you mean? How and in what way have you seen his research misused? Did you look at the link I provided in post#14?

And no, why would yo want to step up to him, period.

I guess my question is since the BG does not have a gun and you do is that more in line with what you think Kleck is saying?

 

[David Armstrong]

Now, David, that's not what I asked. How about answering my question.

I consider myself to always be armed. Sometimes, like everyone here, I do not have a gun with me.

 

[David Armstrong]

Could someone please explain to me why the BK armed robbery event would be classified as a just a robbery rather than an armed attack waiting to happen on everyone in the place?

Because you don't classify events on what might happen.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I am saying that virtually every expert in the field says not to fight back as long as it is just a robbery.

Except Kleck apparently. David, I don't think you have answered what Kleck's research and he is saying. From what I have presented Kleck says it is better to fight back than comply if armed. You say that is based on good guy having a gun and BG not having one but I don't see how you arrive at that. Kleck does not say that does he?

Experts say all kinds of things until someone comes along and shows something else. Think football and the T formation.

I think pax said it well when she talked about expert's audience being those who are not armed. No rocket science there to see that unarmed good guy fighting wiht armed BG is not too smart.

But that dynamic is beginning to change and I think Kleck's research may be showing that.

 

[David Armstrong]

All the "facts" that you keep quoting from your personal sources are just not what I believe as the gospel.

One is certainly entitled to believe whatever they wish. Some choose to believe that Rambo is a training film. Others choose to believe the Moon landings were faked. I tend to believe that certain facts can help us make our belief closer to reality.

This is the bottom line: When and if you are personally ever placed in a situation like this, (and I hope you never are) you do what you think is best and the rest of us will do what we think is best.

I don't think I have ever suggested otherwise. I have suggested that the more one understands the dynamics of crime and criminals the more accurate the decision on what do do will be.

We live in a different world now, where values and respect for authority (and human life) are non existent.

People keep saying that, but all the evidence says otherwise.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, here it is according to Kleck, not somebody who read something about what somebody wrote about what Kleck found (which is why I don't use the internet for that much serious research):
1994 NSPOF Survey
Respondents N= 2658
Victims N= 141
Gun Use by Perpetrator N= 9

So from that data you say that if you are armed and defend yourself against an non-gun wielding BG you are OK(won't be injured) but if he is with gun you are not OK (will be injured)? Please explain how you arrive at that.

PS I am not sure that Kleck used the 1994 NSPOF Survey. I think he used his own?

 

[David Armstrong]

Interesting. An armed robbery isn't violent? What would you call it?

Not particularly. Most armed robberies go down without anyone being injured, and most injuries that do occur are minor in nature. As a general rule there is more violence when the local high school runs a football play than there is at an armed robbery.

You seem to be saying here that an armed robbery isn't very dangerous.

Most armed robberies aren't very dangerous. Thousands occur every day with no big deal. Some do become dangerous, usually because of failure to comply, but they are few and far between.

I think the term opening refers to when you will act. So, if you are armed and faced with a BG that violates one of your "I won't do rules" you just draw and shoot? Or do you wait for an opening was my question and what determines that.

If that seems the best response, yes. If some other response seems better I will choose it.

What do you mean? How and in what way have you seen his research misused?

I think I have posted that about 3 times now.

I guess my question is since the BG does not have a gun and you do is that more in line with what you think Kleck is saying?

I don't "think" what Kleck is saying. I respond to what Kleck and others have written or what they have siad. I do not try to color it with "I think".

Except Kleck apparently.

That is why we say "virtually."

David, I don't think you have answered what Kleck's research and he is saying.

And I think that I have.

From what I have presented Kleck says it is better to fight back than comply if armed. You say that is based on good guy having a gun and BG not having one but I don't see how you arrive at that. Kleck does not say that does he?

No, that is not what I say. I say that the statement you keep tossing around is based on respnse to all criminals, not just those armed with a gun. Please go read Kleck's work instead of reading what somebody thinks somebody else said about what they thought somebody meant when they talked about what someone said about Kleck. That is what I keep saying here. If people really want to learn about this stuff go read it, don't read some synopsis by some third party that takes a few points out of context. Then read about how to do analysis, and find out why an N of 9 really doesn't give you much to go on, and things like that.

Experts say all kinds of things until someone comes along and shows something else.

Gosh, I guess that sums it up. The FBI, virtually every LE organization in the U.S., dozens of folks who have done research on this topic for decades, most all security consultants, and so on are all wrong and somebody on TFL who read what somebody else wrote about one bit of research is right. Hard to argue with logic like that.

PS I am not sure that Kleck used the 1994 NSPOF Survey. I think he used his own?

Have you considered actually reading Kleck's work?

 

[David Armstrong]

So from that data you say that if you are armed and defend yourself against an non-gun wielding BG you are OK(won't be injured) but if he is with gun you are not OK (will be injured)? Please explain how you arrive at that.

The data does not show that, and I do not and have not said that.

 

[skydiver3346]

Again, David A:

You keep saying that "most" armed robberies are not violent????

Are you living on another planet? I can assure you that any victim (who has actually experienced an armed robbery) can attest that it IS a violent crime committed against them. Not only physically (in some cases) but for sure mentally, for all of them. It alters the way people act and where they go from then on. It stays in the back of your mind and haunts you for a very long time to come.
NOTE: The reason I know this, is that I was unfortunate to be a victim of an armed robbery (by knife to my throat) 8 years ago in a hotel parking garage in Macon, GA. Trust me sir, it is something I guarantee that you never want to experience. It is VIOLENT in all respects. Although I only suffered a small cut on my neck (it still bled a lot), I was very lucky as it could have been much worse.
So the bottom line is (for me) always be prepared and alert. I never trust any strangers who approach me anymore. That is sad, but that is the way it has to be nowadays. Why? Because you never know what their "real" intentions are. They could possibly be violent and if it involes a robbery to your person, IT IS VIOLENT.

 

[David Armstrong]

You keep saying that "most" armed robberies are not violent????

Defining "violent" as relating to physical injury, yes, most armed robberies are not violent. As mentioned before, "Most armed robberies go down without anyone being injured, and most injuries that do occur are minor in nature." Football games tend to be more violent than most armed robberies.

Not only physically (in some cases) but for sure mentally, for all of them. It alters the way people act and where they go from then on. It stays in the back of your mind and haunts you for a very long time to come.

I think you are trying to make your experience cover everyone. I've known a number of folks, myself included, who have gone through armed robberies and it has not altered the way they think, act, where they go, or anything else.

Because you never know what their "real" intentions are.

You never know that about anybody, now do you? But for most things in life we look at likelihoods and probabilities, and act according to those. Otherwise we would never drive a car, for instance. It is only in the arena of armed robbery, AFAIK, that some say we should ignore virtually all the information and instead take the route that is most likely to create problems.

 

[skydiver3346]

Hello David A: I give up, you win!

Anyone who compares the violence of an armed robbery to a high school football game is just someone (that none of us can ever reach)....

Congrats, you win brother. I give up trying to make my points.....

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If that seems the best response, yes. If some other response seems better I will choose it.

Well, that seems definitive enough

I think I have posted that about 3 times now.

Other than your claim (which I think is erroneous) that

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

I have not seen anything you have posted that shows how his studies have been misused. I dispute your claim that Kleck's data only reflects resistance against non-gun wielding opponents and while that may your opinion of his study that is not what he says or what his study shows.

That is why we say "virtually." The FBI, virtually every LE organization in the U.S., dozens of folks who have done research on this topic for decades, most all security consultants, and so on are all wrong

When Galileo and Copernicus came along "virtually" all the experts said the earth was the center of the universe. Those two looked at some more evidence and found out something new. Maybe Kleck did too.

If people really want to learn about this stuff go read it, don't read some synopsis by some third party that takes a few points out of context.

Did you look at the reference I posted in #14? You can actually hear Kleck say it first hand!

Have you considered actually reading Kleck's work?

I am beginning to wonder if you have. Kleck has written a lot of things but yes I have read his work and that is why I dispute your assertion that his study does not reflect armed resistance to a gun wielding BG. His work seems to be doing pretty well against criticism and I would include yours as well.

It seems David that due to your dancing around on the issue you don't have a creditable answer to Kleck's position but that's OK, you are not alone as the antigunners are having problems with it too.

 

[hogdogs]

Just like the phrase I use when someone postures in front of me, this thread seems to have followed "I am a merry go round, jump on when yer ready but jump off before you puke":barf: Seems the OP and topic has been made and now is just the usual players in the typical T&T circle of doom...
My final word on the point is I am glad a citizen legally used his weapon and skill to take out a gun toting violent robber (presence of gun to rob is violent IMHO) hope he fully recovers from wounds suffered by the BG's bullets...
Brent

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Anyone who compares the violence of an armed robbery to a high school football game is just someone (that none of us can ever reach)....

I agree Skydiver and I was curious to see how fast someone would jump on that one. I think this is a sign of straws being grasped and one cannot discuss issues without some common ground to base the discussion on.

 

[Creature]

Lets not forget that David admits that he choses to remain armed despite the evidence he has presented throughout this thread. That says more to me than what has been written so far.

 

[pax]

Four pages and now we're going in circles.

Closing this before anyone forgets my earlier warning...

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, folks.

pax