Robbery armed resistance vs cooperation

[IglooDame]

This was brought up in a thread which I'd prefer not to threadjack, but thought it deserved attention anyway:

In the USA you need a gun to protect yourself against other gun slinging trigger happy red and white necks. To me personally the idea that anyone is probably carrying a gun would be scary as well. Especially when taking in consideration that most of them can't use it properly and will probably hit you when aiming at a robber instead.

From what statistics I've seen and occasional news stories about robberies, the numbers of innocent bystanders hit by gunfire when someone is legitimately defending themselves with a gun (i.e. it isn't a case of mistaken identity) is pretty much zero. Does anyone have statistics or even a sampling of news stories to the contrary?

The best defense against a robber / thief is still a good insurance. When someone threatens you with a weapon pulling your own won't make the situation any better for yourself.

There's two answers to this. First and foremost, is the understanding that a concealed firearm does not restrict your choices. You are not obligated to draw in the face of a pistol aimed at you or a knife at your throat, and carrying a concealed firearm doesn't prevent you from having good property insurance.

Second, I'll just quote Dr Gary Kleck since he's far more knowledgeable about this than I am, and despite his conclusions the anti-gun lobby has rarely disputed his findings or methods.

Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice (1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes). He found victims that defended themselves with a gun against a robbery or an assault, had the least chance of being injured, or of having the crime completed. Doing nothing, trying to escape, reasoning with the offender, or physical resistance (other than with a gun), all had higher probabilities of injury and crime completion. Using more recent data, Lawrence Southwick Jr. found that "victims using guns were consistently less likely to lose cash or other property than other victims, and also establishing that this was true regardless of what weaponry was possessed or used by the offenders." Another study also "found that burglaries in which victims resisted with guns were far less likely to be completed." (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997, pp 170-71.)

A National Institute of Justice publication, Firearms and Violence, cites Kleck stating, "victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent."

 

[El_Machinae]

"The best way for evil to win is for good men to do nothing"

"Discretion before valor"

There's always a best choice, it just won't be the same choice every time.

 

[Leonel]

I really think it depends on the situation. If there's more than perhaps two criminals then perhaps it would be best to cooperate because, come on, unless you're Rambo, the chances of you taking down 5 gun welding robbers without any injuries to innocents goes way down. However if there's just two or perhaps just one robber, resistance could be a better choice.

My understanding with this is that living organisms feel powerful in groups, ie the more than 2 robbers example I explained, and are thus more inclined to take more dangerous risks. However a robber by himself or with his buddy will be more on edge and scared of what he's doing. Unless he's a nutcase fresh from the loony bin, he's going to be absolutely petrified about getting caught or his victim fighting back. I think I read somewhere that a slim majority of criminals (50%-60% I think) had the primary fear of their victims being armed with a gun. Now I think not only would resistance protect your assets but would also buy the police more time to arrive and take the robber in. Of course that is just speculation.

But I think the most ideal solution is to not look like a target. I walk through Chinatown in Portland and it's a pretty seedy place to be. I try to look big, scary and angry. Wearing dark ratty clothes helps but not too ratty. I haven't been robbed yet and, God willing, I never will. But I always keep a sharp pen ready for stabbing in my coat pocket next to my cellphone just in case...

 

[marioh]

It all depends on circumstances.
Sometimes, you don't even need a weapon to fend off a would be mugger.

Some chump tried to mug me once when I was in HS in the stairwell. Obviously not very bright, he was on a lower step than I when he whipped out his puny box cutter. I kicked him square in the chest, he went rolling down the stairs, and I went to class.

 

[Leonel]

It all depends on circumstances.
Sometimes, you don't even need a weapon to fend off a would be mugger.

Some chump tried to mug me once when I was in HS in the stairwell. Obviously not very bright, he was on a lower step than I when he whipped out his puny box cutter. I kicked him square in the chest, he went rolling down the stairs, and I went to class.

Stratagy also works as well as a weapon.

 

[Kayak]

There's two answers to this. First and foremost, is the understanding that a concealed firearm does not restrict your choices. You are not obligated to draw in the face of a pistol aimed at you or a knife at your throat, and carrying a concealed firearm doesn't prevent you from having good property insurance.

Hm. What about the argument that someone is more likely to shoot you first if he believes that you are armed?

 

[IglooDame]

Hm. What about the argument that someone is more likely to shoot you first if he believes that you are armed?

You have to appear unarmed, hence the "concealed" aspect.

But seriously, I think that is offset by the odds that the evildoer would prefer to simply avoid you altogether.

 

[Kayak]

You have to appear unarmed, hence the "concealed" aspect.

But seriously, I think that is offset by the odds that the evildoer would prefer to simply avoid you altogether.

I'm not certain that it wouldn't be Billy the Kid day for criminals either way. Besides how can you advocate that most people should be armed, but then that they should apear unarmed and change that calculation.

I think you will need to come up with those offset odds to make that case.

 

[JohnRM]

If you want to carry a gun to defend yourself, have at it. If you don't want to carry a gun to defend yourself, have at it. Either way, you take your chances. To each his own.

 

[logical_psycho]

A robber robs a store to get money, or goods that are worth a lot of money. If you cooperate, he will take the goods, and leave you unharmed. If you decide to pull a gun instead, you will at least make the robber nervous, and when people get nervous their fingers get twitchy. Most likely he will pull the trigger first, and no amount of money in your wallet is worth taking a bullet to the head. Not to mention, with good insurance you can get most, if not all, money back. Which is probably just as expensive as owning a gun and keeping up your shooting skills.

The only criminal you might want to defend yourself against is a rapist and then a tazer will work just as well.


Only a very small percentage of all criminals is actually not mentally sane, and those are the ones who would probably stab you from the back before you even realize something is threatening you anyway.


By the way, when I saw this topic title I already expected to get quoted on my earlier post.

 

[Leonel]

A robber robs a store to get money, or goods that are worth a lot of money. If you cooperate, he will take the goods, and leave you unharmed.

But what's to stop a criminal taking it a step further? Surely one can't trust a criminal to leave one's self alone once he gets what he wants. Perhaps feeling that he got away with stealing things, he can get away with shooting someone or raping someone while the opportunity is there before him. Perhaps he said that he wouldn't harm anyone just to get people to cooperate and then to make sure no witnesses can place him he blows everyone away. Of course there will be criminals that will do what they came to do and leave everyone alone but there are criminals that will not only do what they came to do but do more while he's there.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Bottom line is that armed criminals will always be dangerous; personally I'd prefer to face them armed. Perhaps most criminals just look for an easy robbery and don't want to shoot anyone, but maybe not. If they plan on using the weapon, maybe you don't stand a chance either way.

But if the robber has a gun merely for intimidation purposes, maybe he'll try the convenience store down the road if the cashier in the first one he tries is pointing a gun right back at him.

The only criminal you might want to defend yourself against is a rapist and then a tazer will work just as well.

Rapists should be shot on sight.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm not certain that it wouldn't be Billy the Kid day for criminals either way. Besides how can you advocate that most people should be armed, but then that they should apear unarmed and change that calculation.

I think you will need to come up with those offset odds to make that case.

Unfortunately I know of no studies or surveys done which ask murderers whether they shot someone based on whether they thought the victim was armed (prior to the victim displaying a weapon).

Give me a day to cull through some data and I may be able to offer something into evidence, though.

 

[IglooDame]

A robber robs a store to get money, or goods that are worth a lot of money. If you cooperate, he will take the goods, and leave you unharmed. If you decide to pull a gun instead, you will at least make the robber nervous, and when people get nervous their fingers get twitchy. Most likely he will pull the trigger first, and no amount of money in your wallet is worth taking a bullet to the head. Not to mention, with good insurance you can get most, if not all, money back. Which is probably just as expensive as owning a gun and keeping up your shooting skills.

The only criminal you might want to defend yourself against is a rapist and then a tazer will work just as well.

Only a very small percentage of all criminals is actually not mentally sane, and those are the ones who would probably stab you from the back before you even realize something is threatening you anyway.

By the way, when I saw this topic title I already expected to get quoted on my earlier post.

You've pretty much reiterated your earlier post in the other thread. But as I've said previously, it is simply foolish to try drawing when you already have a gun pointed at you. Stupid. Suicidal, even. So we're agreed on that point. I'd sooner give a robber my life savings than take even a 50/50 chance of being killed, if I was guaranteed that the robber wouldn't take my savings and then my life soon after.

Now, in your example above - once again, you incorrectly make two assumptions:
1. That the robber won't hurt or kill you if you cooperate.
2. That the only choices available to you are cooperating or drawing faster than he can pull the trigger.

In the first assumption, I quote from my original post: "while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured." At worst, statistically, defensive gun use is no more likely to get you hurt than cooperating does.

In the second assumption, there's no rule saying you have to stand there. You can duck or dive behind a counter, you can appear to open the register just long enough to get your hand out of sight and on your pistol, you can push a rack over to create a distraction... Or you can just cooperate all the way through.

And I don't know about the expense of insurance, but I can say for certain that a pistol suitable for concealed carry can cost as little as $250, holster another $50, maybe $100 for a good intro class, and then annual amounts of maybe $0-50 for a concealed carry license, $100 for a range membership, and $100 for practice ammunition. However, the insurance you're talking about only covers some possessions, the insurance I'm citing also helps with burglaries, rape, assault, and so on.

 

[logical_psycho]

Yeah I re-iterated what I said before mostly. I don't know where you got those statistics, so I can't check whether they're valid, but if they are it surprizes me.

I'm not saying a gun CAN'T be handy in certain situation though, but I'm willing the risk hoping that I won't run into a situation like that. Just like I'm not taking the risk of carrying a gun, which is also present, since a lot of accidents happen of people shooting themselves or their loved ones after making the wrong decission.


Also the ability for nearly everyone being able to own a gun also means that hot tempered people will own one. Someone who isn't criminally minded can grab his gun in a sudden moment of rage and shoot someone, while if he would have rationalized for a minute he would have realized there are different (better) methods to solve his problem. I think whenever someone owns a gun they will also be quick to pull it and be their own judge?

"Oh, you try to steal from me? Pop pop in your head... you deserve to die for doing so."

That while this is a job for the justice system. Just like this person above my post said, rapist deserve to get killed... no, they deserve some serious jail time, or even better therapy in a closed institution. If I would own a gun I would probably also kill someone who raped a loved one of mine, without it I probably wouldn't. Pulling a trigger is a lower barrier to cross than to smash someone's skull to bits with your bare hands. It makes it too easy to use serious violence.


And about ducking behind counters and dodging bullets, not everyone is as athletic as a Neo from the Matrix.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

@ Igloodude

What I would be interested in is: do you have data concerning not only the injury rate but also the death rate when it comes to defend armed or cooperate during a robbery?
Carrying a firegun might trigger the robber shooting at you whereas cooperating might result in only getting knocked out so you can´t call the police or alarm your neighbours. (an assumption, I am not too familiar with the issue)

 

[Nobody]

At my job me and all the other guys carry knives (box cutters) plus the butchers and produce areas have giant ones. plus all the wine bottles i work with. if someone with a knife trys to rob me, and i had a oppertunity i would take them down no question

 

[superisis]

apparently:

California, one of the strictest Victim Disarmament states in the union (with perhaps the exception of Massachusetts or NY) does not prevent you from carrying a concealed weapon on private property. This holds true for almost all 50 states (sorry, haven't looked through all 50 Penal Code books to see if this is true, so I have to rely on my lawyer friends).

This means if you own a liquor store/gas station/something else that gets knocked over often there isn't anything prohibiting you from buying a firearm, practicing with it and carrying the thing on you while on your property.

I'd probably own a firearm if I owned/ran a store of some sort in the States... then again, i'd prefer to run a store in Sweden. Fewer guns and fewer crazies, total.

 

[Stapel]

Igloodude,

So, according to Gary Kleck a victim has a higher chance to get hurt, when he is unarmed?

It's only now that I realise we have been discussing seperate issues the other time. I have once claimed, in another thread, chances of getting hurt (when a robber enters your hosue) will increase if have a gun at home.
I remember you could rather smoothly persuade me it was a heaviuly biased investigation about a chance of hurting a freind/relative is 143 as high as hurting a robber.

What I like to know now is this:
The situaion is this: An armed robber enters your house. Let's forget a moment about any other possibilities than a plain and simple burglar, looking for cash, jewelry, CD's and such.

What are the chances you get hurt:
-when having a fire arm
-when not having a fire arm

What are the chances you get robbed:
-when having a fire arm
-when not having a fire arm

Simple question which should have simple answers.
Gary Kleck seems to cloud things abit.

BTW, I once succesfully prevented a 'crime completion' with a hockey stick .