Video of robber killed in Pharmacy holdup - One-shot stop? Caliber?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently you missed JohnSK's post in which he directly refutes your statement. Lets see your factually supported specifics.
 
You are much more likely to survive such an attack if you co-operate.
Click to expand...

We had a college student get carjacked a few years ago. She Co-operated with her attacker. They found her body 5 months later when the snow melted.

So much for blanket statistics.
 
We had a college student get carjacked a few years ago. She Co-operated with her attacker. They found her body 5 months later when the snow melted.

So much for blanket statistics.
Click to expand...
Carjacking and store robberies are not comparable. You are just muddying the waters and trying to confuse the issue. Plus, like I said, an exception does not disprove a rule. My guns usually fire safely when I pull the trigger. This one guy had his blow up when he did. Does that mean mine are not safe now?
 
Stop avoiding the question.

Prove that compliant victims are less likely to be killed when confronted by an armed assailant than an armed victim who has yet to draw a weapon.
 
Apparently you missed JohnSK's post in which he directly refutes your statement. Lets see your factually supported specifics.
Click to expand...
John's post, while well thought out, is pretty much just a "it seems to me" statement. It is not supported in fact or statistics. I own my own business. I deal with insurance companies. These companies spend a lot of time having actuaries figure out your most likely means to avoid injury. None of their findings support fighting back unless you have immediate reason to believe they are going to shoot. Such as removing you from your workstation, locking doors, etc. You have obviously never owned a business or looked into the crime statistics regarding robberies and resistance.

John is absolutely right about one thing. Pulling a gun on a robber that is either not capable of firing or not willing to fire will cause them to flee. But if they are are capable and willing you have probably sealed your doom by going for a weapon when someone else has a bead on you...unless you fancy yourself quite the Rambo.
 
Well then it should be easy for you to show us those facts and statistics upon which you and the insurance companies base their claims.

I am no Rambo, but I will never let a robber take me on HIS terms if I can help it.

So, how about those verifiable statistics?
 
This was totally justifiable, the robber was pointing his gun at the pharmacist, obviously that is threatening deadly force.

This security guard will be fine.

You point a gun at someone, and you get shot, well thats on you as far as I am concerned.
 
Well then it should be easy for you to show us those facts and statistics upon which you and the insurance companies base their claims.

I am no Rambo, but I will never let a robber take me on HIS terms if I can help it.

So, how about those verifiable statistics?
Click to expand...
I have the weight of common knowledge on my side and have shown that.

How about you try and prove otherwise? C'mon, let's see some information that shows resisting a robbery increases your odds of survival. You like to play contrary all the time and demand info but I never see you actually credibly dispute anything. You just like to argue negatives and play the burden game. Let's see if you can walk the walk. :)
 
John's post, while well thought out, is pretty much just a "it seems to me" statement.
Click to expand...
That's true as it applies to situations where the attacker is armed with a firearm since the statistics aren't broken out that precisely.

However, in the general case (across the board violent crimes) there are statistics that indicate clearly that resistance without a firearm is a better strategy than compliance if remaining uninjured is the goal.
I own my own business. I deal with insurance companies. These companies spend a lot of time having actuaries figure out your most likely means to avoid injury. None of their findings support fighting back unless you have immediate reason to believe they are going to shoot.
Click to expand...
I'll bet if you get hold of the raw data they're using as opposed to their recommendations you'll see that you've misinterpreted their motives.

The problem with relying on the insurance companies is that they're not exclusively worried about the good guys remaining uninjured, they're also highly concerned with the bottom line.

Even in a case where the "good guys" prevail and no innocents are injured, the insurance company may end up paying out a large civil claim from an injured criminal or his family. On the other hand, if everyone complies, they have little to no liability as the result of actions by the criminal. In other words, if the criminal shoots someone the insurance company's liability is limited by the terms of the policy but if the security guard shoots the criminal the business/insurance company may have to pay out huge settlements.

Their advice is EXCELLENT if your primary concern is your business' bottom line, perhaps not so good if your primary concern is remaining uninjured.
But if they are are capable and willing you have probably sealed your doom by going for a weapon when someone else has a bead on you...
Click to expand...
The key is not capability but rather their willingness. That is a factor that seems to be in short supply, generally speaking.

I spend a good deal of time reading through reports of self-defense in the news and it is not uncommon for the defender to present a firearm against an attacker who "has a bead on" the defender and still prevail uninjured. Yes, there are armed attackers who are willing to press the situation even against an armed defender, but that is definitely the exception rather than the rule.

Drawing against an attacker who has a bead on you is more dangerous than drawing on an unarmed attacker, but it's overstating the situation to say that you have "sealed your doom".
 
I have the weight of common knowledge on my side and have shown that.

How about you try and prove otherwise? C'mon, let's see some information that shows resisting a robbery increases your odds of survival. You like to play contrary all the time and demand info but I never see you actually credibly dispute anything. You just like to argue negatives and play the burden game. Let's see if you can walk the walk
Click to expand...

I see. Your "verifiable facts" are now "common knowledge". You got nothing. You made a claim, and when I called you out on it to produce these facts and crime statistics, you come up empty. This is becoming a trend with you.
 
'll bet if you get hold of the raw data they're using as opposed to their recommendations you'll see that you've misinterpreted their motives.
Click to expand...
No, you can take a "worker's safety course" in Oregon (and I know in AL too) that clearly shows the statistics of armed robberies, the percentage that involved resistance, the percentage that did not, and the percentage that did and did not end in the clerk being harmed. It is all pretty clear. Like I said, they do specifically point out situations where you are NOT supposed to co-operate.

It is similar to the "a man demands you keys at gun point " scenariio. The best answer is give him the keys and let him flee. Most gun owners would never say "pull your gun and start firing" because they realize the severe disadvantage they are at tactically and that he is likely to take the car and leave. If the man then says "get in the car" you fight back for all you are worth and take your chances.
 
I see. Your "verifiable facts" are now "common knowledge". You got nothing. You made a claim, and when I called you out on it to produce these facts and crime statistics, you come up empty. This is becoming a trend with you.
Click to expand...
Naw, you could find that data too if you wanted to...but you chose not to so I would like to see what you can contribute. Please, regale us with your numbers and statistics...or at least where/how you came across the data to support your belief. Add something to the conversation besides dissent.
 
Nice try. I wont be baited. You made the claim...now back it up with actual verifiable numbers. That's YOUR job, not mine.
 
Nice try. I wont be baited. You made the claim...now back it up with actual verifiable numbers. That's YOUR job, not mine.
Click to expand...
C'mon, I have never, ever seen you back up a claim. It would be a nice change. let's hear it. I have talked in length (as I often do) and will do so again after you present your side, but it is your turn now. Let's see something besides conjecture.
 
Good form

So, I gave the perp a 9.3 for form and completing two full gainers, but deducted .7 for not throwing his gun far enough.

btw: that move is called the "OC" or "Oswald Curl"

And if you freeze the frame where the guard first draws his weapon it looks like a flat-topped Glock, and, I'm guessing it was either a .40 or .45 and not a 9mm.
 
Thanks for proving yet again that your full of bluster and very little fact. Your shift away from the claim you made by asking me to disprove yours is classic PBP tap-dancing.
 
Thanks for proving yet again that your full of bluster and very little fact. Your tap dancing away from the claim you made by asking me to disprove yours is classic PBP tap dancing.
Click to expand...
Still nothing of substance to add? At least you are consistant. :)
 
No, you can take a "worker's safety course" in Oregon (and I know in AL too) that clearly shows the statistics of armed robberies, the percentage that involved resistance, the percentage that did not, and the percentage that did and did not end in the clerk being harmed. It is all pretty clear. Like I said, they do specifically point out situations where you are NOT supposed to co-operate.
Click to expand...
That doesn't contradict the results of the statistics I've been quoting.

Compliance IS a better strategy if the victim is UNARMED. That is NOT the case when the victim is armed with a firearm. In the case where the victim resists with a firearm the statistics indicate that his chances for remaining uninjured are better than if he had complied.
 
That doesn't contradict the results of the statistics I've been quoting.
Click to expand...
it does and it doesn't. If you do not reach for a weapon the perp does not know you have one and your odds of survival are extremely high. In fact the vast majority of people that have been robbed are never injured. I have been robbed more than once. A couple times when working at a Subway in college and while working in a credit union once.

You would have to be able to show statistics on how many times a victim presented a firearm and how many of those events ended in injury of the victim. Those numbers would then have to greatly exceed the percentage of people that just do not get injured without resisting. Also, how many of those instances would have involved no injury without the firearm. Is there a big difference if any?

So if 95% of all robberies do not result in injury to the victim and 94% of robberies where the victim presents a firearm result in no injury to the victim it is still safer to not resist...and vice versa.

It is something that would be worth researching. I would love to see the statistics and see them examined. Your example is a valid hypothesis that can be quantified if someone has the means and desire to do it.
 
Still nothing of substance to add? At least you are consistant.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I never tried to add "verifiable specifics and facts" to the conversation, just opinion.

Now, how does being a business owner make you an expert on anything again? Especially self-defense and casualty avoidance?

Also, I have been mugged not less than four times while I was growing up in NJ. Each time, I was beaten and injured if for no reason other than to add time for the mugger to get away and ensure that I would not follow or be able to call for help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top