Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arrkhal]

Equally, they aren't evil sadists who will kill people just for the hell of it.

On the other hand, robbery is about "getting money" in the same sense that rape is about "sex."  Once again, 20% to 25% of robbers injure or kill their victims after getting their money and whatever else they want.  Those are not gambling odds.

If all they want is money, shoplifting is a lot faster, lower risk, and higher reward.  Especially now with e-bay and amazon.

Um... Arrkhal.  The original statistic you quoted was for all incidents, not just robberies.  It also included a variety of animal attacks.  You can't just extrapolate that 40% of all these attacks involved firearm wielding attackers (quite possibly including gun toting bears and dogs).

You're getting confused.  The study with animal attacks (maybe, anyway, it also may have just been inflated) was from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.

92% of defensive uses of a gun (by non-cops) ending with either no shots fired, or a "warning shot" (which is hideously irresponsible, but anyway) is from Critical Incidents in Policing (FBI 1991).

91.1% of defensive uses of a gun ending in no shots fired at all is from the 2000 National Crime Victimization Survey, which did not include animals.

Also, animals don't know what guns are.  They're less likely to stop attacking when you brandish a gun.

But anyway, I probably have to concede the point.  I just can't find concrete data on muggers with guns.  Yet.

Huh, I did finally find that survey again.  Animals were not involved in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Fall 1995) article, that was completely my bad.  I must have been tihnking of something else.

It was a crime survey, which one single criminologist applied his own models to, to try and figure out why there was so much of a discrepency in other survey data (respondents were never directly asked if they used a gun, only asked if they resisted, and given the opportunity to state how if they wanted to).  So if it was inflated, that's due to the one guy's methodology.

Other surveys list the annual defensive uses of firearms anywhere from 800,000 per year to 2.5 million.

[Leafsnail]

Criminals also aren't noble gentleman who will say "now that I have your belongings, I shall depart forthwith!"

Equally, they aren't evil sadists who will kill people just for the hell of it.

I have to butt in here to refute this. Muggers don't want to get caught. If your victim sees you, they can choose you from a line of suspects. If there is no witness nobody can give a testimony.

But if they kill someone, there's now a murder investigation against them, which will be far larger than an investigation into mugging.  In addition, there's forensic evidence from the person they've killed, in addition to the fact that they will receive a far greater punishment if caught.

On the other hand, robbery is about "getting money" in the same sense that rape is about "sex."  Once again, 20% to 25% of robbers injure or kill their victims after getting their money and whatever else they want.  Those are not gambling odds.

I can't seem to find these statistics (although I've found a variety of interesting stuff anyway - like apparently mixed race people are most at risk of mugging, for some reason).  Would you mind linking to it?

[Lord Dakoth]

All I can say is if guns cause crime, and firearm laws reduce crime, what is up with DC?

[Lord Shonus]

Not very long ago, it was the standard advice in many states (from the police) to "give them what they want, you're less likely to get hurt." This changed after a spate of carjackings ended with the thief sticking hus gu out the window and blowing away the driver before pulling off.

[Leafsnail]

Not very long ago, it was the standard advice in many states (from the police) to "give them what they want, you're less likely to get hurt." This changed after a spate of carjackings ended with the thief sticking hus gu out the window and blowing away the driver before pulling off.

And I suppose this guy spared people who resisted?

[Rashilul]

Not very long ago, it was the standard advice in many states (from the police) to "give them what they want, you're less likely to get hurt." This changed after a spate of carjackings ended with the thief sticking his gun out the window and blowing away the driver before pulling off.

And I suppose this guy spared people who resisted?

At least they may have a chance.

[Lord Shonus]

The advice changed to "Pull away if possible, physically resist if you can't escape, because at least then you're harder to hit."

[Arrkhal]

Like I said, your best bet is, compliance as your first option (except for rape, obviously), run away if compliance doesn't work, and fight if running is impossible.

Also, liability.  If a cop publicly says "you should fight if you think you're about to die" or something like that, the courts would have a field day with that, the next time someone killed or injured a criminal in self defense.

And I suppose this guy spared people who resisted?

Don't be asinine, seriously.  It's about getting away from the criminal (by fighting your way past, if that's the only way out).

Out of over 30 victims that Ted Bundy killed, for instance, the one who got away unscathed was the one who resisted (of course, several of those women never even had a chance; but out of the ones who did have a chance, the single one who resisted survived physically unharmed and unmolested).

I can't seem to find these statistics (although I've found a variety of interesting stuff anyway - like apparently mixed race people are most at risk of mugging, for some reason).  Would you mind linking to it?

I've been reading a bunch, too.  It looks like the methodologies of those crime surveys are so sloppy that the totals can just be thrown out entirely.  The percentages of incidents that result in the criminal going away are probably accurate given consistent they are across 13 different surveys with different methodologies, on different years, though.

Let's see if I can find the victimization rate citation again.  I see it all over the place, but always as a secondary citation.

I did find a thing which said that for all violent crimes in the US but murder (rape, aggravated assault, robbery), the victim is injured 48% of the time when the perpetrator is an adult, 40% of the time with a juvenile criminal.  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/201628.pdf

Unfortunately, opening that made Acrobat update itself, and it won't read files until I reboot.

Here's some raw datafrom the Bureau of Justice Statistics that doesn't say whether the victim resisted or not, that I looked at the CSV files for:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=313

For 2006
Successful robberies (property taken)
Total - 455,530
With injury - 201,430 (injury to victim)
Without injury - 254,110

Attempted robberies (unsuccessful)
Total - 190,410
With injury - 30,950
Without injury - 159,460

Some interesting trends there, though no distinctions made for the victim's actions.

I'll edit in more after I reboot so the stupid Adobe reader works.

[Leafsnail]

I wouldn't be so sure that's a good idea.  While it would be the better thing to do if confronted with this particular person (I'd probably regard him as a serial killer who happens to steal cars, incidentally) it would put you in unnecessary danger with most others.

Like I said, your best bet is, compliance as your first option (except for rape, obviously), run away if compliance doesn't work, and fight if running is impossible.

Yep, I'd agree.  Most of the times a mugger won't intend to do you serious harm, but resistance is sometimes necessary.  I still feel though that having a gun... well, it sortof gives you a false sense of security.  You feel like you can take him on just by whipping it out (incidentally - I'm kindof curious.  Would you keep your self defensive weapon in a holster or directly accessable pocket?  How fast do you reckon you could get it out?) and threatening him.

[AtomicPaperclip]

and the Communist Party is banned

Huh? That seems blatantly unconstitutional and like it would have been challenged long ago

This has also confused me.

Oh we havent used that silly old constitution in a loooooooong time.  We just keep it around for show and because we like crusty old yellow paper.

Our presidents and lawmakers have a long and proud history of wiping their assholes with the constitution....it goes all the way back to George Washington.  I will not have people besmirching this noble practice!   

Many of our founding fathers didnt even want a bill of rights, or for the public to have the power to amend the constitution/bill of rights.

I'm going to assume you're being satirical here. Otherwise, your history teacher REALLY needs his/her license revoked. The ability to amend the constituion was present in the very earliest drafts, and was one of the only sections to make it through the convoluted compromise processes largely intact. As for the Bill of Rights, the reason it exists in amendment form is that ti was not intended to grant rights, but to clarify them. Those who opposed it did so on the grounds that all the necessary guarantees were already present, but Rhode Island and a number of other states wanted things to be blatantly spelled out. (This is the reason why the Second Amendment rarely comes up in court compared to the First. It's the only one to provide a qualifier, and nobody is sure how the courts will interpret it.)

I haven't read the pages after this yet, but there is a long history of violating the constitution.

Starting with John Adams' administration. It was illegal to speak out against the federalist party.

[Lord Shonus]

There's a difference between constitutional violations, and opposing the constitution in the first place. Adams became paranoid about the average citizen due to the French Revolution. He was not, as the person I was replying to suggested, an advocate of no Bill of Rights and no changing the Constitution.

[Neruz]

I wouldn't be so sure that's a good idea.  While it would be the better thing to do if confronted with this particular person (I'd probably regard him as a serial killer who happens to steal cars, incidentally) it would put you in unnecessary danger with most others.

Like I said, your best bet is, compliance as your first option (except for rape, obviously), run away if compliance doesn't work, and fight if running is impossible.

Yep, I'd agree.  Most of the times a mugger won't intend to do you serious harm, but resistance is sometimes necessary.  I still feel though that having a gun... well, it sortof gives you a false sense of security.  You feel like you can take him on just by whipping it out (incidentally - I'm kindof curious.  Would you keep your self defensive weapon in a holster or directly accessable pocket?  How fast do you reckon you could get it out?) and threatening him.

The main issue with using a weapon for self defence is that pulling a weapon (not neccessarily a gun, just a weapon) instantly escalates the situation. If the guy mugging you didn't intend to harm you, when you pull a weapon on him you can guarantee that he intends to harm you now.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin; the guy mugging you did intend to harm you. In which case you want to pull a weapon of some sort. Tricky.

[Arrkhal]

Finally found one, though it's a secondary citation.

http://www.moccw.org/defense.html

Over 40% of people were attacked when they made no effort to protect themselves, and 25% were injured.  Not betting odds.

Yep, I'd agree.  Most of the times a mugger won't intend to do you serious harm, but resistance is sometimes necessary.

I still feel though that having a gun... well, it sortof gives you a false sense of security.  You feel like you can take him on just by whipping it out (incidentally - I'm kindof curious.  Would you keep your self defensive weapon in a holster or directly accessable pocket?  How fast do you reckon you could get it out?) and threatening him.

You're projecting your feelings on others.  That opinion is pretty common where guns are scarce, among both the criminals with guns, and people who don't have 'em.  When you're the only kid on the block with a gun, maybe it does give you a big head, I dunno.

But when everyone and their grandma has a gun, not so much.  The responsible gun owners generally say that if anything, they're more cautious, and more likely to try to avoid fighting altogether.  Those are the people who really hope they never have to use their gun, but carry it anyway just in case.  Quoting pretty much every self-defense instructor in the country again, "never go anywhere with a gun that you wouldn't go without one."  And actually, several of the ones I know pretty much only carry a gun if they're with their wife and kids; they're fairly sure they can take care of themselves, but children are small and weak and run slow.

Like I've said, it's a last resort.  And actually, I do partially agree with your earlier statement.  Most gun owners, even though they absolutely do not want to have to injure someone ever, also place too much faith in their gun.  A gun is one option, out of many.

A semi-skilled guy with a knife versus your averagely skilled gun-toting American with their sidearm (including cops, realistically), at any distance less than 3 meters; my money's on the knife fighter every time.  At hand-to-hand range, hand-to-hand combat skill is the biggest determiner, with physical size a distant second (not a surprise).  And gun owners usually just don't seek out that kind of training.  And unfortunately, cop training doesn't cover it enough either.

However, with decent training (I like the Filipino martial arts; the real ones, not the touristy BS), a gun has its own drawbacks and advantages, just like a knife, a club, or your fists.  The main advantage of a gun is, if you get knocked flat on your back, you can shoot your attacker without trying to get up.  On the ground is the worst place to be, and a gun is far and away the best option in that situation.

A more realistic approach than "just whip it out" would be attack the guy unarmed, hopefully immobilize his weapon arm, and then draw and shoot if the unarmed attack didn't give you enough of an opening to run away.  And that's all if giving him money or whatever didn't work.

Also, to answer the question, I've been timed in competition at about 1.5-2.0 seconds from buzzer to first shot, on average, with a Glock 23 and C-TAC holster.  That's from concealment with regular clothes, not a speed-rig.  In competition, that kind of time is on the "slightly good" side of average.

--------------

If the guy mugging you didn't intend to harm you, when you pull a weapon on him you can guarantee that he intends to harm you now.

Except in the cases where they run away, which are pretty common.

[zchris13]

How do you carry your gun?

[Leafsnail]

Except in the cases where they run away, which are pretty common.

I'd say the kind of mugger who was intent on harming you in the first place is the same kindof mugger who doesn't give up too easily.

One of the main things I don't like about gun control is that it escalates everything.  While before you could generally rely on hand to hand techniques and running, you suddenly need a gun to defend yourself from gun wielding criminals.  You might say that they'll have guns anyway but... well... they generally don't.  If a weapon is illegal, it's far more expensive, and can be traced very easily (a gun they found in London a while back was found to have been used in 8 shooting incidents).