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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...
The statistics specifically address the situation where the victim "RESISTS with a firearm".

In the general case that offers a better chance for remaining uninjured than compliance.
Those numbers would then have to greatly exceed the percentage of people that just do not get injured without resisting.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect.

The only thing that the number of cases affects is the margin of error in the resulting conclusions.

In other words, if there were a million cases where a victim complied and with victims remaining uninjured 75% of the time and there were 2000 cases where the victim resisted with a firearm with 83% of the victims remaining uninjured you can still say that the odds favor resistance with a firearm.

The difference is that the compliance figure (75%) has a margin of error that is virtually nil while the the resistance with a firearm figure (83%) may have a margin of error that is a percentage point or two.
 
Let's see something besides conjecture.
Click to expand...
Isnt it all conjecture until its over?

I think old Andrew Jackson summed it up best......

"Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking...."
 
The statistics specifically address the situation where the victim "RESISTS with a firearm".

In the general case that offers a better chance for remaining uninjured than compliance.
Click to expand...
I can''t address that scenario statistically since I have never been privy to those numbers. What where the ones you are stating? How do they compare to the fact that the vast majority of all robberies do not end in injury?

We need to work out a proper formula to test the hypothesis. You never know, you might end up with something publishable. :)
 
And I am asking what you are basing that "opinion" upon..reality, fantasy?
Click to expand...

Personal experience. See my last post. Those were robberies that turned into muggings AFTER I was compliant and handed over my valuables.
 
Still looking for your "exception to the rule" in my case...

Of the four muggings I experienced, loosing two teeth was the lightest injury I received by my merry muggers. Three weeks in the hospital with a broken arm, three broken ribs, two embolisms and fractured skull was the worst.

Tell me again how I should be compliant.
 
I can''t address that scenario statistically since I have never been privy to those numbers. What where the ones you are stating?
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticfiles.org/conspire/gun2doc.htm

Search that page for Kleck.

The statistics are stated in terms of the percentage of victims injured so smaller is better.

Self Defense Method Against Robbery vs Percent Injured
Gun--->17.4%
Other weapon--->22.0%
No resistance--->24.7%
Other measures--->26.5%
Threaten or reason with attacker--->30.7%
Nonviolent resistance and evasion--->34.9%
Knife--->40.3%
Tried to get help or frighten attacker--->48.9%
Physical force--->50.8%
How do they compare to the fact that the vast majority of all robberies do not end in injury?
Click to expand...
The numbers show that is true, but give an edge to victims that resist using a firearm.

AGAIN, these statistics do not differentiate between the case where the attacker is armed with a firearm and I'm not aware of any that do. It stands to reason that an armed attacker is more dangerous than an unarmed one, but in the absence of data it's hard to say how much that affects thing over the general situation.

I believe it's safe to say that resisting against an armed attacker increases your chances of being injured, it's just not possible to say if that increase is enough to overcome the 7% advantage of resisting with a firearm vs complying.
 
Personal experience. See my last post. Those were robberies that turned into muggings AFTER I was compliant and handed over my valuables.
Click to expand...
That does not in anyway contradict what I said. I said there are exceptions but that "usually" you are uninjured if you co-operate. You are trying to say one except is disproving all other data. That is not logical. Like I said before....my gun routinely fires safely when I pull the trigger. A guy next to me at the range had his blow up when he did the same. Does that now make all guns with triggers unsafe?
 
Well, lets see. Based upon my personal experience, you would be wrong. Since I should base my future reactions upon my past personal experiences, and not upon some conceptual study based solely on statistics where the situations do not exactly match mine, I am 100% sure that the BG is going to hurt me.

If I know my gun is going to blow up if I pull the trigger because I have experience with that gun, I am not going to convince myself that it wont because everyone else's gun probably wont.
 
JohnSKA,

One problem with those numbers is it is not dealing solely with "Armed robberies involving the assailant possessing and brandishing a gun." It is including all reported robberies. The number of robberies that result in injuries includes unarmed robbers or robbers armed with a knife where victims are injured during confrontation (whether the robbery was successful or not).

You would have to break down the figure to clearly show how many of the victims that presented a firearm and =survived unharmed did so against an assailant who was pointing a firearm at them and how many of the ones that did get injured did the same thing...and vice versa.

Meaning if there was 100 cases of a victim defending themselves with a firearm and only 17 of them were injured by the assailant, but all 17 where injured when the assailant also had a firearm and the 93 that did not get injured happened when the assailant did not have a firearm you get a different conclusion.
 
We carry guns to protect ourselves and others from death or serious harm. We're not police...we don't have vests or backup or snipers on the roof. We're nice people who want to attend our kids' weddings and play with our grandkids. Show poor muzzle discipline and the risk is on you... :D

Milspec
 
One problem with those numbers is it is not dealing solely with "Armed robberies involving the assailant possessing and brandishing a gun."
Click to expand...
You'll note that I've been careful to point that out.

I mentioned it in my initial post and was in the process of adding a reminder to my last post as you were posting.
You would have to break down the figure to clearly show how many of the victims that presented a firearm and survived unharmed did so against an assailant who was pointing a firearm at them and how many of the ones that did get injured did the same thing...and vice versa.
Click to expand...
I would love to have statistics broken out like that. Unfortunately I have not seen any that break out the situations based on how the attacker is armed.
 
JohnSKA,

You responded before I added this part...
Meaning if there was 100 cases of a victim defending themselves with a firearm and only 17 of them were injured by the assailant, but all 17 where injured when the assailant also had a firearm and the 93 that did not get injured happened when the assailant did not have a firearm you get a different conclusion.
Click to expand...

So you can see where I am going. With all the information it could be very easy to conclude that defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence. We would need all the information and not just parts of it. That is the type of thing the Brady's do. :)
 
PBP, didnt you learn in Statistics 101 that once you manipulate the criteria, any statistical analysis can be made to indicate anything you want to advance as "proof". You continually keep trying to refine the criteria of the data sets to such an extent in your quest to question the veracity of John's casual study that anything but a very specific situation would warrant the compliance you are so desperate to advance.
 
PBP, didnt you learn in Statistics 101 that once you manipulate the criteria, any statistical analysis can be made to indicate anything you want to advance as "proof". You continually keep trying to refine the criteria of the data sets to such an extent in your quest to question the veracity of John's casual study that anything but a very specific situation would warrant the compliance you are so desperate to advance.
Click to expand...
Okay, then "manipulate" the statistics to support a claim that fighting back is the best course of action against an armed assailant.
 
With all the information it could be very easy to conclude that defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence.
Click to expand...
It's difficult to quantify precisely how much the attacker's being armed affects the situation but it's easy to refute the part about the "guaranteed death sentence".

If you read through Clayton Cramer's self-defense blog which consists of a huge volume of news articles on self-defense shootings you will find that it is fairly common for victims to remain uninjured even when they pull a gun against an armed attacker.
 
Okay, then "manipulate" the statistics to support a claim that fighting back is the best course of action against an armed assailant.
Click to expand...

You're doing it for me. Just you keep on writing. It more of what YOU cant prove than what you can.
 
If you read through Clayton Cramer's self-defense blog which consists of a huge volume of news articles on self-defense shootings you will find that it is fairly common for victims to remain uninjured even when they pull a gun against an armed attacker.
Click to expand...
Then it should not be hard for him to further break down his numbers and not rely on anecdotal evidence. I am not seeing where that has been done.
 
Then it should not be hard for him to further break down his numbers and not rely on anecdotal evidence. I am not seeing where that has been done.
Click to expand...
The problem with using Cramer's articles to try to determine precise numbers is that it's impossible to determine how the data was collected. It's reasonable to look at very general trends (multiple attackers are common, attackers tend to run when confronted by an armed citizen, armed citizens usually prevail even against attackers who seem to have the advantage, etc.) but it's not kosher to take those articles and make more specific claims (40% of the time there are multiple attackers, 90% of the time attackers run when confronted by an armed citizen, 85% of the time armed citizens prevail..., etc.).

The only reason I referenced it was because it provided an easy counterexample to the speculation that "defending yourself with a firearm against an assailant armed with a firearm could be a guaranteed death sentence." It doesn't take much reading to see that it's not at all uncommon for a citizen to defend with a firearm "against an assailant armed with a firearm" and to remain uninjured. It's just not possible to try to construct a valid statistic (defendable percentage) from those articles.
 
The problem with using Cramer's articles to try to determine precise numbers is that it's impossible to determine how the data was collected
Click to expand...
Exactly, that is why it is not very valuable. We would need to determine a way to use real reports to gather the numbers. It would be a huge undertaking but a worthwhile one. Things would have to be done very precisely. All information would need to come from police reports and be easily verified. Otherwise it is just conjecture. The other side of the argument spends a great deal of time and money doing just that on the opposite side of the argument. As I have mentioned before, I have a friend that is an actuary and he is very well paid to do just that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top