T-Mobile store employee with concealed carry license shoots 2 armed robbery suspects (Chicago) - Polidicks

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49530046]You don't know any of that for certain. When my life is potentially in danger, I'd rather protect myself instead die.[/QUOTE] You don't know for certain that you're chance of surviving by drawing your gun is any better, though? If we say you have a 50% risk of these people deciding to shoot you for no reason, and a 30% chance of winning a firefight, picking the firefight is obviously the worse option. The percentages are of course pulled from my ass, but saying "you can't know for certain" is kinda meaningless when none of you can. I respect that you might want to make your own luck than depend on a robber's rationality, but still.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49530211]You don't know for certain that you're chance of surviving by drawing your gun is any better, though? If we say you have a 50% risk of these people deciding to shoot you for no reason, and a 30% chance of winning a firefight, picking the firefight is obviously the worse option. The percentages are of course pulled from my ass, but saying "you can't know for certain" is kinda meaningless when none of you can. I respect that you might want to make your own luck than depend on a robber's rationality, but still.[/QUOTE] Where are you getting your stats from?

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49530273]Where are you getting your stats from?[/QUOTE] Let me quote myself: [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49530211]You don't know for certain that you're chance of surviving by drawing your gun is any better, though? If we say you have a 50% risk of these people deciding to shoot you for no reason, and a 30% chance of winning a firefight, picking the firefight is obviously the worse option. [B]The percentages are of course pulled from my ass[/B], but saying "you can't know for certain" is kinda meaningless when none of you can. I respect that you might want to make your own luck than depend on a robber's rationality, but still.[/QUOTE] Or am I misunderstanding what you're asking?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49530438]Let me quote myself: Or am I misunderstanding what you're asking?[/QUOTE] Missed that part. Regardless... If a weapon is involved, and I have one as well, I'm going to use it to protect myself. My life means too much to me to just leave it to their discretion on what to do with me. [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] [url]http://supremepatriot.com/2016/01/13/grandma-exercises-2nd-amendment-rights-shoots-robber-square-in-the-chest/#[/url] Perfect example

People seem to be really sure about the fact that a robber won't harm you so long as you comply, that seems like quite a scary assumption, like assuming someone breaking into your house is just there to steal shit. Like someone mentioned, cases do exist of robbers shooting clerks just because they weren't pleased with the amount of money they got or something, people who stick up stores aren't exactly a bastion for sanity.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49532301]People seem to be really sure about the fact that a robber won't harm you so long as you comply, that seems like quite a scary assumption, like assuming someone breaking into your house is just there to steal shit. Like someone mentioned, cases do exist of robbers shooting clerks just because they weren't pleased with the amount of money they got or something, people who stick up stores aren't exactly a bastion for sanity.[/QUOTE] For the record, my guess before doing this google search was that somewhere 90% of robberies go on without anyone getting seriously physically hurt. Okay, just for you I went and found [url=https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/robbery]some statistics[/url] (weapons data is from Table 15). The robbery rate where the perpetrator used a gun is around 39 per 100000 inhabitants. If we assume [I]all[/I] murders are committed along with a robbery (which is totally fucking ludicrous) that would give us a rate of 39/4.6 = ~8.5 robberies with guns / murder. Or in other words, there's a percentage risk of 11.764 of getting killed in a robbery [I]if[/I] we assume all murders are committed along with a robbery, [I]and[/I] that all murders are committed with firearms. That means you have to be ~88% sure that you can win a firefight for it to make sense ([I]in the most extreme scenario[/I]) to draw a gun as soon as you see that robber has a gun. Of course there's bodily harm as well, and since I'm using murder rate that isn't counted in there. I think I left enough margin, though.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49534943]For the record, my guess before doing this google search was that somewhere 90% of robberies go on without anyone getting seriously physically hurt. Okay, just for you I went and found [URL="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/robbery"]some statistics[/URL] (weapons data is from Table 15). The robbery rate where the perpetrator used a gun is around 39 per 100000 inhabitants. If we assume [I]all[/I] murders are committed along with a robbery (which is totally fucking ludicrous) that would give us a rate of 39/4.6 = ~8.5 robberies with guns / murder. Or in other words, there's a percentage risk of 11.764 of getting killed in a robbery [I]if[/I] we assume all murders are committed along with a robbery, [I]and[/I] that all murders are committed with firearms. That means you have to be ~88% sure that you can win a firefight for it to make sense ([I]in the most extreme scenario[/I]) to draw a gun as soon as you see that robber has a gun. Of course there's bodily harm as well, and since I'm using murder rate that isn't counted in there. I think I left enough margin, though.[/QUOTE] From a review of relevant studies by the CDC as ordered by Obama: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). " (pg. 16-17, [URL]http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1[/URL])

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49530482]Missed that part. Regardless... If a weapon is involved, and I have one as well, I'm going to use it to protect myself. My life means too much to me to just leave it to their discretion on what to do with me. [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] [url]http://supremepatriot.com/2016/01/13/grandma-exercises-2nd-amendment-rights-shoots-robber-square-in-the-chest/#[/url] Perfect example[/QUOTE] That website is a [URL="http://supremepatriot.com/2016/01/14/muslims-say-they-will-make-it-legal-to-rape-white-christian-women-when-they-take-over-europe/"]great source[/URL] of impartial information.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49534943]For the record, my guess before doing this google search was that somewhere 90% of robberies go on without anyone getting seriously physically hurt. Okay, just for you I went and found [URL="https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/robbery"]some statistics[/URL] (weapons data is from Table 15). The robbery rate where the perpetrator used a gun is around 39 per 100000 inhabitants. If we assume [I]all[/I] murders are committed along with a robbery (which is totally fucking ludicrous) that would give us a rate of 39/4.6 = ~8.5 robberies with guns / murder. Or in other words, there's a percentage risk of 11.764 of getting killed in a robbery [I]if[/I] we assume all murders are committed along with a robbery, [I]and[/I] that all murders are committed with firearms. That means you have to be ~88% sure that you can win a firefight for it to make sense ([I]in the most extreme scenario[/I]) to draw a gun as soon as you see that robber has a gun. Of course there's bodily harm as well, and since I'm using murder rate that isn't counted in there. I think I left enough margin, though.[/QUOTE] First of all, that is data from 2012. Secondly, that is national crime. So your statistics are very wide and dated. This is Chicago, the 3rd most populated place in America and with a very diverse group of people residing within it. The city alone has a large impoverished area, large groups of blue collar and white collar workers. Within this, there comes a lot of problems. [URL="https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Crime%20Statistics"]CITY OF CHICAGO CRIME STATS 2015[/URL] Source: Chicago Police Department. Using the FBI's national statistics is a poor basis for making these types of judgements. The united states has proven to have a very diverse population with many different mindsets and problems from coast to coast. Your experience will vary on mileage. I do defend these store owners taking a stand. While it is unlikely, armed robberies do carry of the risk of the thief becoming a murderer even though the attendant is compliant. If you got a sharp wit, good aim, and clear thinking in a situation as this. Do as you see fit. clearly the person who fired at the robbers knew what he was doing.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49534999]From a review of relevant studies by the CDC as ordered by Obama: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). " (pg. 16-17, [URL]http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1[/URL])[/QUOTE] I'm not suggesting people should use knives instead for self-defense. I'm suggesting risking instigating a firefight is not necessarily conductive to your health (IN GENERAL) compared to waiting it out. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49535146]First of all, that is data from 2012. Secondly, that is national crime. So your statistics are very wide and dated. This is Chicago, the 3rd most populated place in America and with a very diverse group of people residing within it. The city alone has a large impoverished area, large groups of blue collar and white collar workers. Within this, there comes a lot of problems. [URL="https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Crime%20Statistics"]CITY OF CHICAGO CRIME STATS 2015[/URL] Source: Chicago Police Department. Using the FBI's national statistics is a poor basis for making these types of judgements. The united states has proven to have a very diverse population with many different mindsets and problems from coast to coast. Your experience will vary on mileage. I do defend these store owners taking a stand. While it is unlikely, armed robberies do carry of the risk of the thief becoming a murderer even though the attendant is compliant. If you got a sharp wit, good aim, and clear thinking in a situation as this. Do as you see fit. clearly the person who fired at the robbers knew what he was doing.[/QUOTE] So because national statistics don't represent more specific situations, I should use statistics from Chicago to generalize? Would you say the data has changed significantly since 2012? I'm not gonna blame anyone for taking a stand (as I've said [I]multiple[/I] times in this thread), but I don't think it's necessarily the best decision when you look at the outcome. Depending on the situation of course.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49534999]From a review of relevant studies by the CDC as ordered by Obama: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). " (pg. 16-17, [URL]http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1[/URL])[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so [B]further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings[/B]. Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration. [/QUOTE]

While the term "freedom" is abused heavily by the right wing, the United States is technically supposed to err on that side. It was recognized from a fairly early stage that leaning towards freedom over control was not exactly going to be the safest of options, but personal safety was deemed to be of less value than freedom. So, even assuming you could actually link firearms to an increased crime rate (Which, globally, doesn't really work out. Poverty and education determine crime rates.), the fact of the matter remains: We don't, and shouldn't, care. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;49535197]Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings. Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.[/QUOTE] Basically no research ever claims to be conclusive. They always have a "further research" section for social science stuff.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49535165] So because national statistics don't represent more specific situations, I should use statistics from Chicago to generalize? Would you say the data has changed significantly since 2012? I'm not gonna blame anyone for taking a stand (as I've said [I]multiple[/I] times in this thread), but I don't think it's necessarily the best decision when you look at the outcome. Depending on the situation of course.[/QUOTE] On the national level, its probably hanging around the same where the FBI states. The averaged data I think is done every few years, and they pump the information out to give you a feeling that you're more secure than you actually are. Some areas around Chicago alone have a much higher rate of crime than the 3rd largest city in the US. For example, Rockford Illinois. I even believe Springfield and Elgin have a higher crime per 100k, despite having a much smaller population. Its better to just let them go, but whos to say they don't rob someone else and it all gets ugly? Maybe they where going to shoot them all anyways to leave no loose ends hanging around. I'm not going to blame you for bringing in hypothetical situations, or philosophizing on variables and outcomes. Its good conversation. I'm not saying you're wrong, just using national crime data paints a very different picture to people living in different areas of the United States. Local data is more personalized, and being a former inhabitant of Chicago I tend to get a little indepth since people like to think Chicago is a place where people are getting shot left and right.

[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49535256]On the national level, its probably hanging around the same where the FBI states. The averaged data I think is done every few years, and they pump the information out to give you a feeling that you're more secure than you actually are. Some areas around Chicago alone have a much higher rate of crime than the 3rd largest city in the US. For example, Rockford Illinois. I even believe Springfield and Elgin have a higher crime per 100k, despite having a much smaller population. [B]Its better to just let them go, but whos to say they don't rob someone else and it all gets ugly? Maybe they where going to shoot them all anyways to leave no loose ends hanging around. [/B] I'm not going to blame you for bringing in hypothetical situations, or philosophizing on variables and outcomes. Its good conversation. I'm not saying you're wrong, just using national crime data paints a very different picture to people living in different areas of the United States. Local data is more personalized, and being a former inhabitant of Chicago I tend to get a little indepth since people like to think Chicago is a place where people are getting shot left and right.[/QUOTE] That's what the police is for, to be honest. I'm not trying to say my statistics are great (I'm reading up for my exam on Monday, so I didn't want to spend 3 hours scouring the internet for the best numbers on the issue), but the fact of the matter is that even when you make extremely silly assumptions (every murder in the US is committed in a robbery with a gun), you still end up with a percentage high enough for me to think "Yeah, you're probably better off doing nothing that would escalate the situation [I]in most situations[/I]". And that's really the only point I'm trying to get across. I respect that people want to defend themselves, and of course that's the right solution when the robber is going to kill or hurt somebody. In most cases they don't seem to want to do so, though, and that's my take-away from this.

Chicago Police are notoriously bad at response times, and there is calls they won't respond too. Depending on the police is one of the worst things to do.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49535361]That's what the police is for, to be honest. I'm not trying to say my statistics are great (I'm reading up for my exam on Monday, so I didn't want to spend 3 hours scouring the internet for the best numbers on the issue), but the fact of the matter is that even when you make extremely silly assumptions (every murder in the US is committed in a robbery with a gun), you still end up with a percentage high enough for me to think "Yeah, you're probably better off doing nothing that would escalate the situation [I]in most situations[/I]". And that's really the only point I'm trying to get across. I respect that people want to defend themselves, and of course that's the right solution when the robber is going to kill or hurt somebody. In most cases they don't seem to want to do so, though, and that's my take-away from this.[/QUOTE]Yeah, it's likely really situational. It's probably better to let some crackhead run off with a bit of money rather than pulling out a gun, aiming it, and then suddenly introducing a new level of complexity to the situation. (there's always the chance for a miss and ricochet, none of this happens in a vacuum) When that shit needs to happen it ought to, but erring on the side of caution is usually a good thing.

I'm surprised this happened in Chicago of all places. Legal concealed carry is rare in Illinois and downright illegal up until 2012 when it was deemed unconstitutional to legally ban it state wide. As far as all the dangers involved, I would rather have my conceal carry than not in bad situations like a robbery, because it's just one more option to help you stay alive. Just because you've got a concealed gun doesn't mean you are required to use it in a situation, you could just give them the money they want and let them be on their way, but you never know how situations change. I've seen enough clerks getting shot on videos to not trust the average armed robber.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;49536051]I'm surprised this happened in Chicago of all places. Legal concealed carry is rare in Illinois and downright illegal up until 2012 when it was deemed unconstitutional to legally ban it state wide. As far as all the dangers involved, I would rather have my conceal carry than not in bad situations like a robbery, because it's just one more option to help you stay alive. Just because you've got a concealed gun doesn't mean you are required to use it in a situation, you could just give them the money they want and let them be on their way, but you never know how situations change. I've seen enough clerks getting shot on videos to not trust the average armed robber.[/QUOTE] I don't see how you could ever defend yourself or have the time if the robber is not afraid to kill you in case you try to defend yourself. Unless of course you are highly trained, and fast about your moves, and the robber preferably less so. Chances are you will both be injured and hospitalized, you could both even die.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49536086]I don't see how you could ever defend yourself or have the time if the robber is not afraid to kill you in case you try to defend yourself. Unless of course you are highly trained, and fast about your moves, and the robber preferably less so. Chances are you will both be injured and hospitalized, you could both even die.[/QUOTE] You can't do much if someone just rushes in firing as they come through the door at you, but that's not usually how robbers shoot people during robberies. Also if you do carry a handgun you should train and take that seriously. It doesn't take many range days and training courses to be as proficient or better than your average law enforcement officer here in the United States. They train usually around twice a year on range days. But yes, it's extremely dangerous to have to use a firearm in a situation like that, but you should only do so when that danger is safer than not doing anything, which does happen.

[QUOTE]I'm not suggesting people should use knives instead for self-defense. I'm suggesting risking instigating a firefight is not necessarily conductive to your health (IN GENERAL) compared to waiting it out.[/QUOTE] A "self-protective strategy" includes things like compliance, hiding, etc. [QUOTE=Morgen]Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.[/QUOTE] Saying that we need more research in order to make a conclusive pronouncement of fact on the issue doesn't change the fact that the current available evidence points in one direction.