According to the FBI and based on the statistics they've collected...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Last edited Sat Jan 10, 2015, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

...your best course for sustaining the least or no injury during an assault is to resist using a weapon. And, those chances are maximized if that weapon is a firearm. Why is that?

eta:
(You'll notice that no link is provided here. Should anyone have a link to this data I'd appreciate a reply with that info.
Thanks)

[Fred Sanders]

1. Common sense?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. Thanks, Fred.

[TxVietVet]

3. Most criminals think their victims are defenseless.

They don't expect the victim to be armed.

[Fred Sanders]

4. I thought the idea was do not resist, in any event. It is what all store clerks being robbed do.

DO NOT RESIST a robbery attempt, give them what they want,...live another day.

No idea what "during an assault"means, kind of generic scenario.

Common sense.

[blueridge3210]

7. You would be incorrect.

Many store clerks/owners resist an assault while armed.

http://www.guns.com/2014/09/23/store-clerk-kills-would-be-robber-in-houston-convenience-store-video/

With his family held at gunpoint at their convenience store in Houston, Usman Seth, 20, acted quickly, shooting and killing a man later identified as Sam Abugalboush, who was armed with a shotgun.

Seeing his daughter, who was working the register, being threatened by Abugalboush, Seth’s father passed him a 9mm Smith & Wesson pistol that he bought to protect the store.

“I wanted to make the threat go away. My family — their lives — were in my hands,” Seth told the Houston Chronicle. “I had to protect them.”


Every situation is unique; there certainly are some circumstances where cooperation is the best course of action. Others require armed resistance.

[Fred Sanders]

9. One situation does not an argument make. And if he had not shot the man all would be alive.

[GGJohn]

12. If the man hadn't tried to rob them while holding a shotgun,

he would still be alive.

[blueridge3210]

13. " It is what all store clerks being robbed do."

One situation, among many, does go to refute your poorly thought out argument.

"And if he had not shot the man all would be alive."

I'm glad to see you put the well being of the armed, violent criminal above that of the law=abiding store owner.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Yes, of course, that is what I did. You have fun tearing apart your strawman, it is easy.

A little education for all you folks.



"This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."

[blueridge3210]

19. "And if he had not shot the man all would be alive."

Clearly, your focus is on the violent armed criminal being shot by the law-abiding store owner instead of on the clear issue that if the armed violent criminal had not chosen to attempt a forcible felony they would likely still be alive.

The store owner was bothering no one when the armed violent criminal chose to commit the forcible felony. Clearly the responsibility for the demise of the armed violent criminal lies with the criminal, not the law-abiding store owner who acted in self defense. Sorry your knee-jerk reaction due to your bias against gun owners acting in lawful self-defense prevents you from being able to comprehend this.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Would you have a link indicating...

...that:
- either -
-- the shotgun was unloaded and the assailant possessed no other weapons
- or -
-- the assailant was physically and/or psychologically unable to pull the trigger and that the family under attack had a foolproof means of determining those conditions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Robbers kill their victims frequently either for the thrill or to eliminate witnesses.

Sometimes the best route may be to just ride it out but other times the criminal has chosen the worst intentions. Forcing people into universal victimhood under penalty of law is not the answer.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. And expecting those under attack to...

...be expert at accessing the intentions of their assailants is unreasonable.
The fundamental evidence of freedom is availability of choice to the individual. The chance that an individual MAY choose to commit a crime is not a reason to eliminate freedom. Numerous establishments have been founded upon and maintain to the best of their abilities, areas where choices are minimized for the safety of the people. We call those establishments prisons.

[Shamash]

29. +1

[Duckhunter935]

15. That is to protect the company

from any possible liability not the employee who is replaceable. Glad you are on the companies side, Fred.

[Fred Sanders]

17. Another strawman? Is that all you guys can do? Have fun with your construct also.

[Duckhunter935]

21. I know truth hurts

I worked in retail, and our way of doing it was having armed police in the store by giving them free coffee and food. Had city, county and state police most of the night present, ARMED.

[Fred Sanders]

23. No strawman? Free coffee and food for armed police hanging around is the solution, got it. I

better stock up on java and donuts. Maybe your strawmen would like some too, you know, to hang around my store. Armed, of course.

It gets funnier here every minute.

[Duckhunter935]

26. Yep I spent two years

on graveyard at this 7-11 in the 80's. Now it is a quality dairy and it is much more built up. Back then all there were was the apartment complexes by there.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Quality+Dairy+Co/@42.6831051,-84.5138368,215m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0xa51f237361470732

[Fred Sanders]

5. Then there can be a good old shoot out! No one gets hurt except the criminal every time.

Everyone knows that having a firearm creates a bullet and assault proof force shield of defence.

[blueridge3210]

22. Nice Straw man.

No one has made this argument; you are being untruthful.

"This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."

[Fred Sanders]

24. Satire versus strawmen? I give up. No more instruction for this thread today. I have some coffee and

donuts to buy to hand out to police to hang around and protect my store...

Check out GG, he has a closet full of strawmen, no satire in there at all.

Speaking of coffee...about that time.

See ya!

[blueridge3210]

27. So far, the only instruction in this thread has been from the OP.

Your poorly worded and thought out arguments do not qualify as instruction.

Don't let the door hit you.

[Shamash]

31. Do not mischaracterize Fred!

I think a reading of his comment history will show that nothing Fred has ever said on the issue reaches the lower threshold for counting as an "argument". Please do not slander those who are capable of arguments by associating them with him.

[blueridge3210]

33. Whoops, my bad.

You're right. His constant trolling does not even rise the level of "argument". Is it just me, or does there seem to be a steady stream of posters who drop in for a while to "straighten out" the Gungeon, get their butt handed to them and leave; only to be replaced by a new poster? Just curious.

[Duckhunter935]

38. I see quite a few

that post here, get their but handed to them, run away and hide here then go back and post derogatory things in the "safe haven" they require.

[GGJohn]

39. His other favorite tactic is to run away from a thread

when he knows he's been bested, which is every time he tries to ridicule those of us that are pro 2A.

[Duckhunter935]

42. I have noticed that nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. I've definitely noticed it. He runs away when he can't drown facts in his fallacies and

he runs away when the misogynistic implications of his demands embarrass him (rather than reexamine his beliefs).

My prediction: He'll grow increasingly aggravated then quit posting here but whenever the topic arises he'll proclaim those gunners are just too stupid to be reasoned with.

[Duckhunter935]

48. I think you are right in your prediction

He has not come back, looks like he ran away from this thread. Add another one to the list.

[Fred Sanders]

57. I am BACK. Seeing how my fan club missed me so, see you soon in the Gungeon...did you

guys see the thread about the NRA gunner moles at DU trying to disrupt threads with their NRA talking point? They are pretty devious, though many are rather obvious.

Check it out.

And check out my new avatar.

[Duckhunter935]

58. Link?

[Fred Sanders]

59. Drink?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

40. ~

[Duckhunter935]

28. so you are calling me a liar

just up and say it and don't try and be cute about it. Facts are facts and too bad if you do not like them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. You do realize...

...you're requesting him to make a characterization after you've read the evidence of his ability to do so?
The irony there is think enough to cut with chainsaw.

[Duckhunter935]

32. I know

he responded, until called out and once again goes and runs away from the thread. This has happened several times now. I do not expect an answer from him to my posts. I think the lack of response actually makes my point even stronger.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. YMMV but...

...I selectively use my own personal ignore function, not the site based option but my own where I just don't always respond to rhetoric based on what I call 'glandular logic'. This choice maximizes stimulating discussion while maintaining one's option to be heartily amused.

[GGJohn]

36. Oooooh, a shoutout from Fred Sanders!!!

I feel sooooooooo...........violated.

[blueridge3210]

53. Fred? Fred?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. fred's busy with his coffee

[blueridge3210]

55. That must be some cup of coffee.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. pro-RKBA folks have...

...big guns to make up for our inadequacies. Maybe pro-control have analogous needs.

[GGJohn]

6. Statistics are what they are,

however, if I or my wife are being assaulted, I'm going to defend us with my weapon.

[safeinOhio]

8. Statistics are what they are

and you or your wife are more likely to be assaulted by the other than a stranger.

[Fred Sanders]

10. "I will defend myself and my family", what a novel concept. And defence with a gun is the only way?

Captain Obvious is being even more irrelevant than usual.

[GGJohn]

37. Why are you referring to a member when

he's not even in the conversation?

[GGJohn]

11. Does that make a difference who we would be assaulted by?

Not really.
Stranger, acquaintance, whoever, I'm still going to defend myself and my wife.

[ileus]

18. refuse to be a willing victim....

You must assume if someone it going to assault you then they're willing to kill you.

Don't ever agree to be an easy victim, and never let others choose victimhood for you out of the kindness of their pea pickin hearts.



That's not to say every attack means draw and start plugging away....that just isn't a survival plan. Access and take the best route for you and those around you.

Carrying a firearm is always a wise thing, but it doesn't guarantee success, it just improves the odds a little. Use you brain, stay safe, and have a plan, remember trouble doesn't make an appointment.

And remember while enjoying your basic civil rights, help fight and maintain them for our future generations.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. "If you will not fight for right when...

...you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
- W Churchill

[petronius]

41. How specifically are they/you using the word "assault" here?

Limited to actual physical attack, or is this including holdups, robberies, muggings etc that may not involve acts of violence prior to the resistance?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. I strongly suspect...

...the FBI is using the term as would be denoted by the exact legal definition. I, OTOH, are just paraphrasing them.

[petronius]

52. That would be my guess as well. Which would suggest (even beyond the desirability

of avoiding the ecological fallacy) that it would be unwise to extrapolate from this finding to situations that are not assaults, such as the convenience store example.

It does simplify the calculus for the applicable situations, though: when attacked, fight back (unless, of course, it's a grizzly bear)...

[NYC_SKP]

44. Haven't seen the study, but I'm guessing it's situational.

If a crowd is being assaulted and I'm in that crowd, I'd do best to keep a low profile and watch.

If it's only me and the perp then it might be a draw. Are they similarly armed? Are they young or old, tall or short, high or sober?

In every instance where I might have justifiably used a weapon, I have not; I have complied.

And I'm here to tell about it.

[russ1943]

45. Can you provide a link to this information you've presented?

According to the FBI and based on the statistics they've collected...
...your best course for sustaining the least or no injury during an assault is to resist using a weapon.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. No; sorry

I had that at one time but it's one of the many casualties of upgrades and has gone to the land of lost bookmarks.
I'll do a bit of research as I have time to see what I can find and I'll also edit the OP to ask if others my have a link or other source for the same data.

[Shamash]

49. I would also be interested in the link

I am familiar with the same general conclusion drawn by the CDC Firearm Violence study but was unaware of an FBI report saying the same thing.

[sarisataka]

50. I cannot find

a link to the FBI report that doesn't require payment or registering to some site. Here are some readily accessible reports and studies:

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Women are often advised to use non-aggressive
strategies against sexual assault[3]. Research
suggests that this is a poor advice.According to one
study, women who used non-forceful verbal
strategies, e.g, crying or pleading with the assailant
were raped about 96% of the time[4].

Forceful verbal resistance, including loud screaming
was more effective than non-forceful verbal
resistance. These strategies were associated with
completion of rape from 44%-50% of the time[5].
Running works even better than verbal resistance.
Researches indicate that only 15% of women who
attempted to flee were raped[6].

Forceful physical resistance is an extremely
successful strategy. The completed rape dropped to
14% when the rapist’s attempt was met with violent
physical force. Striking was more successful than
pushing or wrestling. Physical resistance also
appeared to be more effective when assault occured
outdoor[5].

Women who used knives or guns in self-defence
were raped less than 1% of the time. Defensive use
of edged or projectile weapons reduced the rate of
injury to statistical insignificance[7].

http://medind.nic.in/jal/t07/i4/jalt07i4p99.pdf

Logistic regression analysis revealed that most self-protection (SP) actions, both
forceful and non-forceful, significantly reduce the risk of rape completions, and that the
effects of SP actions on rape completion did not vary depending upon conditions such as
whether the offender was a sexual intimate, whether the offender was under the influence
of alcohol or other drugs, whether there were multiple offenders, whether incidents
occurred at home, or at night. We did not find significant effects of specific SP actions
on injury or serious injury, in part because injuries, particularly serious injuries, beyond
rape itself, are rare.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211201.pdf

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. Charging the public...

...to see a report from the FBI; I'm shocked.

Those look like excellent reads though, thanks.