what would you do in a stick up situation?

Let's hope the BG isn't better trained than you.
Click to expand...

Trained? Hell, you better hope he'd doesn't have his finger on the trigger. One quick move and BANG. All that dodge this and that will be a might tougher with a bullet in you and more on the way.


I know exactly how I react in such situations and I feel cofident I can take the average BG quick enough and long enough to pull my weapon.
Click to expand...

Problem is, you have to pull your weapon, at least point it and pull the trigger. The BG has to pull the trigger. Two things:

1)How fast do you think you are? Unless you have YEARS of training (and not 2 or 3 "years") you have virtually NO chance.

2)What makes you think the BG is going to be in contact range? Sure if the gun is poking you in the back then you might have stellar odds, like 1 in a million. If he's 3 feet away, they go to about 0.
 
Just a question - before one speculates on chances - how many folks have tried this scenario in some kind of FOF class?

I've seen guns drawn and shot against someone who has the drop on you. I've seen folks get off the X of a drawn gun. I've seen folks get 'shot' by trying such.

There are no guarantees but one should try it.
 
The most common reason for violence to erupt at an armed robbery is the victims not complying...If you do not start shooting the probability that you will be shot at goes down quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Mr Armstrong:
Can you cite some kind of reference for those statements - or are they simply your personal opinion?


What about this?

Victim resistance can be passive or verbal, but much of it is active and forceful. Potentially, the most consequential form of forceful resistance is armed resistance, especially resistance with a gun. This form of resistance is worthy of special attention for many reasons, both policy-related and scientific. The policy-related reasons are obvious: if self-protection with a gun is commonplace, it means that any form of gun control that disarms large numbers of prospective victims, either altogether, or only in certain times and places where victimization might occur, will carry significant social costs in terms of lost opportunities for self-protection.

On the other hand, the scientific reasons are likely to be familiar only to the relatively small community of scholars who study the consequences of victim self-protection: the defensive actions of crime victims have significant effects on the outcomes of crimes, and the effects of armed resistance differ from those of unarmed resistance. Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies[3] and in burglaries.[4] Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies[5] and to assaults.[6] Cook[7] offers his unsupported personal opinion concerning robbery victims that resisting with a gun is only prudent if the robber does not have a gun. The primary data source on which Cook relies flatly contradicts this opinion. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.[8]

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.
Click to expand...
 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data indicate that even in the very disadvantageous situation where the robber has a gun, victims who resist with guns are still substantially less likely to be injured than those who resist in other ways, and even slightly less likely to be hurt than those who do not resist at all.[8]
Click to expand...


I'll just say that "robber has a gun" is substantially different than "robber has a gun aimed at you".

and... it should be common sense obvious that if you resist a gun toting BG when you DON'T have a gun then you are more likely to get hurt than if you DO have a gun.

and... I'd like the definition of "hurt" in their study. I'd rather be "hurt" than dead.
 
I'll just say that "robber has a gun" is substantially different than "robber has a gun aimed at you".
Click to expand...

"Robber has a gun" INCLUDES all robbers with guns pointed at a victim. To be included in the studies, the victim had to be aware the assailant had a gun. The difference between a gun in hand and a gun actually aimed at you may not be that significant. It is likely that a gun in hand can be aimed and fired faster than we can draw and fire. And yet the data strongly suggests that you are safer resisting with a gun than not resisting at all, as was asserted by Mr Armstrong.

and... it should be common sense obvious that if you resist a gun toting BG when you DON'T have a gun then you are more likely to get hurt than if you DO have a gun.
Click to expand...

Yes. But the point I'm trying to make is that being armed and resisting an armed assault with your gun increases your odds of avoiding injury and death over not resisting at all.

and... I'd like the definition of "hurt" in their study. I'd rather be "hurt" than dead.
Click to expand...

I think it is safe to assume that "dead" is included in the definition of "hurt".
 
Last edited:
"Robber has a gun" INCLUDES all robbers with guns pointed at a victim.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. My point is that the "hurt" statistic doesn't differentiate between the two. It seems very likely that more injuries result from the "gun pointed at you" resistance than "has a gun" resistance.


I think it is safe to assume that "dead" is included in the definition of "hurt".
Click to expand...


I would assume so also. Which is why I say I'm not sure I'd put much faith in those numbers because "hurt" could be dead or it could be a hang nail. If they don't make a distinction then non resistance could get you hurt (for example) 70% of the time with a knock on the head and dead 10%, whereas resistance with a gun could get you dead 30% of the time and otherwise hurt 20% of the time. If they don't makes distinction it seems better to resist but in reality you could be 3X more likely to die. I'm not necessarily looking to avoid injury, I'm looking to not die.
 
peetza,

I think this is taking us back to these "academic statistics" which as rainbow has shown say all sorts of things. I guess I like some of the old rules of thumb that I have seen posted here before like Kathy Jackson and others have done. It seems to me that the minute we start quoting these "studies" without laying out what they mean we will get contradictions.

Crime "studies" are like all studies in that depending on the questions asked and the way the data is collected may contradict each other. I use coffee as an example, every few years a "study" comes out that coffee is good/bad for you. I just drink the stuff and make sure I am near a bathroom and don't drink the leaded stuff after 7:00 PM! :)

Anyway, thanks rainbow for publishing the reference. Some who post here won't do it but get ****** off when asked for the study and I thank you for your courtesy.

There are no guarantees but one should try it.
Click to expand...

Now Glenn, there we have a strong case of agreement. I think FoF would show me more than conflicting studies. Where do you go to get all this FoF training?
 
Anyway, thanks rainbow for publishing the reference. Some who post here won't do it but get ****** off when asked for the study and I thank you for your courtesy.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that. In any case, I was specifically asking if Mr Armstrong had any data supporting his seemingly "definitive" answer to peetzakiller's question: "Do most stick-ups end in fatalities?" *

No, they do not. In fact the huge majority of armed robberies of all type end without the BG causing any major physical harm to anyone. The most common reason for violence to erupt at an armed robbery is the victims not complying.
Click to expand...

Not trying to pick on anyone, but IMO, an answer as definitive as "No, they do not" should either be supported by some kind of data or qualified as a personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
Mr Armstrong:
Can you cite some kind of reference for those statements
Click to expand...
Yes I can and yes I have. Might want to do a search, save us all some time, trouble, etc.
Yes. But the point I'm trying to make is that being armed and resisting an armed assault with your gun increases your odds of avoiding injury and death over not resisting at all.
Click to expand...
Are we discussing armed assault or are we discussing robbery? The two are very different.
In any case, I was specifically asking if Mr Armstrong had any data supporting his seemingly "definitive" answer to the OP's question: "Do most stick-ups end in fatalities?"
Click to expand...
Just the Uniform Crime Reports, which show that, for example, in 2004 there were 401,326 robberies and only 988 that resulted in a murder. Seems pretty definitive to me.
 
Last edited:
Are we discussing armed assault or are we discussing robbery? The two are very different.
Click to expand...

Blessed are those so bold as to think they can, in an instant, decide whether a robber is armed or not and have a seperate plan for dealing with either.

A weapon in a hand you can't see, or in a pocket can be rather difficult to spot.

Even more blessed are those who can formulate a plan for a dangerous situation and utilize it just like they had it planned in their head.

Not criticizing having a plan, but neither do I discount the importance of being quick of mind and feet in such matters. A boxer in a ring doesn't plan each move, but they do have tactics and strategy.
 
Blessed are those so bold as to think they can, in an instant, decide whether a robber is armed or not and have a seperate plan for dealing with either.
Click to expand...
A robber, armed or not, is still engaging in a robbery. Again, an armed assault is different than a robbery.
 
I carry my wallet on the same side as my 45...If I could (depending on circumstances)...I'd probably shoot him then take his money. (No...I'm not kidding, times are hard around here...the loss of only $50 would mean the difference in whether or not my family has food to eat)
 
Just the Uniform Crime Reports, which show that, for example, in 2004 there were 401,326 robberies and only 988 that resulted in a murder. Seems pretty definitive to me.
Click to expand...

Robbery and Armed/Aggravated Robbery aren't the same thing. UCR lumps both types of Robbery together and we can assume that Armed/Aggravated Robberies are probably not the majority. We can also assume that most Robberies that are committed without the use of a weapon aren't likely to end up in a Murder. So that takes out a huge part of that 401,326.

988 of them resulted in a murder... But how many of them resulted in an injury to the victim? Just because it didn't result in a Murder doesn't mean the victim wasn't hurt. That makes the 988 number MUCH higher as well.

Yep, sounds pretty definitive...if you want to use it to back your position and start another condescending lecture.

Otherwise, not so much.
 
Interesting. So stealing money from bad people is OK? Or, is it only OK if you're using it to feed your family? I wonder if the hypothetical "BG" was just trying to feed his family.:barf:
 
NO...stealing money is not OK.

But survival of the fittest is mother natures way...the "BG" got himself in this mess when he picked me...remember.

If it ever comes to that...I won't be robbing people to feed my family...I may get caught poaching game out of season, but I won't be the guy stealing purses at WalMart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top