Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
So this relates back to my last post. For all the data that we gather as a society, where is the citable data that indicates that you have >50% chance of being shot during an armed robbery?
I'll bet it is a far lower chance, which translates to the fact that most criminals that have guns are there to grab and leave, not kill people. ....
I'm sorry, but I utterly fail to see any merit whatsoever to a statistical approach to this type of situation.
Statistically speaking, you probably won't blow your brains out playing Russian Roulette, but I wouldn't play it, would you? Of course not, no matter how good the odds, the harm is too great if you are on the wrong side of them.
Same thing goes for the situation when a criminal has a gun on another person.
Recall why I asked about statistics. It is because this, again, isnt about gun laws but rather outcomes. What is the statistically best outcome for an event, so that the business can implement the best possible chance of not incurring cost onto them, particularly from an employee that would cause the business themselves a higher cost outcome.
My hypothesis, which remember, I am actually PRO-gun, and PRO-CCW, so it is just a hypothesis, is that the actuarial basis indicates that the lower loss, whch I think we an all agree that the cheaper loss is product or cash, not life, is when people do not intervene, and rather allow the thief to take what they want and go away.
So my real intent is to know if the outcome that really boils down to just one gun (the thuef) or two (thief and victim) really has the better outcome.
I doubt that anyone will deny that the situation will escalate as soon as the second gun comes out. Tensions will increase.
This is about escalating an event, not the question of if crime drops as more functional citizens are armed, which I think everyone can agree, based upon well-publicized FBI statistics, to be the case.
Again ,the entire basis is if the most optimal outcome from the companys basis is if someone is allowed to fight back, versus if giving some cash or trinkets and letting them go is the best outcome for minimizing injury or death.
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Why don't you do some number crunching? You want others to prove their points but you won't try to prove what you are talking about. You will not cite any statistics but expect others to. Must make you feel big for taking the easy way out. You have not posted any statistics that deal with your speculation, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
Sounds like youre just another person who is all talk and nothing else. Note above. I have presented the theory that the most statistically sound case of getting out of the situation without escalating or injury is to allow the thief to take their stuff and leave.
So the best statistic Ive found to date is bank robbery. This is the quintesential take something and leave theft. SO what do the statistics say?
Let's start by indicating that the data set is the FBI from 2010 and is 5628 robberies. Of these 5628 robberies, 1445 utilized a firearm, mostly handguns. Now, the main result is this:
Quote:
Acts of violence were committed during 236 (4 percent) of the 5,628 robberies, burglaries, and larcenies which occurred during the 12-month period. These acts included 71 instances involving the discharge of firearms, 145 instances involving assaults, one instance involving an explosive device, and 31 instances of hostage situations. (One or more acts of violence may occur during an incident.) These acts of violence resulted in 106 injuries, 16 deaths, and 90 persons taken hostage.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/bank-crime-statistics-2010/bank-crime-statistics-2010
So this implies that the chance of being involved in a violent event during a theft that is of the take it and leave type, like a cash grab, is 4%, of which roughly 1/3 have a firearm discharged. 16 Deaths, 13 of which are the perpetrator, not the employee or a customer.
This seems indicative to me of the result of non-escalation if the thief can take something and leave. They get what they eant and go.
Now, from some older crime data (crime has been steadily delining overall, I found the following:
Quote:
Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the weapon.
*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.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
But remember that this talks about those who DEFENDED themselves. So obviously the outcome will be better if someone defends themselves with a gun vs a knife or fist. This is just obvious. The question is if one gives the thief what they desire, vs esvalating the situation with presntation of a gun, if the end result is better.
Now the results seem to be pointing to the benefit of citizens defending, such as here:
Quote:
On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...ontrol-lobby/2/
But this doesnt indicate necessarily a public, open scenario, and surely includes the 100k sef defense events mentioned, which mainly are home burglaries, which are indeed a different scenario.
The other robbery information that I found was here:
Quote:
■Among the robberies for which the UCR Program received weapon information in 2011, strong-arm tactics were used in 42.3 percent, firearms were used in 41.3 percent, and knives and cutting instruments were used in 7.8 percent of robberies. Other dangerous weapons were used in 8.7 percent of robberies in 2011. (Based on Table 19.)
Which indicates that you have a less than 50% chance of being involved in a theft including a firearm, and and only just north of 50% chance of a dangerous weapon of any sort being ued if you were robbed.
My conclusion still stands based upon all of this that the basis of letting the thief take and leave yields a better outcome overall because of the bank data and the fact that most thefts just dont involve guns to begin with. So on an actuarial basis for decision, which is what this REALLY is all about, for making business decisions, it appears that there is not a justifiable case that there is a compelling benefit for reduced loss or less chance of death if one just lets the thief leave.
Ill back this up with some composite data again from here:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
again which admittedly is older, but from an age of higher crime.
Quote:
Handguns and crime, 1987-92
Annual
average,
1992 1987-91
___________________
Handgun crimes 930,700 667,000
Homicide 13,200 10,600
Rape 11,800 14,000
Robbery 339,000 225,100
Assault 566,800 417,300
For 1987-92 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000
incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeded the number of incidents.
When offenders fired at victims
*Offenders fired their weapon in 17% of all nonfatal handgun crimes (or about 2% of all violent crimes). In 3% of all handgun crimes, the victim was wounded. The offender shot at but missed the victim in 14% of all handgun crimes. Victims did not report if offenders had tried to hit the victim or missed intentionally.
So regarding the criminals having guns bit, first, there were 300k gun thefts, and a quick search will show that the number stolen per year is between 200-600k guns. Talk about proliferation by those who carry and dont stow or protect (including im sure auto theft when one has a gun locked in the car). Now, if I read this right, there is a 17% chance of the perp firing the firearm in the cases, with 1/5 of the cases indicating injury on the gun-shod defender. . So youre really looking at an outcome of 20% injured to 50% injured in the defense cases, versus something like 1% per the bank robbery data where the thief is allowed to take and leave. Obviously if you're going for self defense, have a gun, but your chance of a best outcome looks worse than the grab and go cases for the bank robberies cited.
So it looks to me like the take and leave is statistically in the business's favor, which again is the entire premise here. I understand that this is statistics pieced together, but nobody has been capable of producing anything better, so this may be the most indicative. 1% chance of injury if non confrontational, vs 20% chance if confrontational with a firearm, based upon data sets of roughly 5000 and 1 million respectively. THis is not a question of if gun ownership is good (which again, I think we all agree it is), or if as a whole, an armed population is a safer one, which again, I think we all agree it is. This is entirely about outcome for the business.
