and the first guy kills the second guy. Life's pretty cheap for gunners. Over $100 (maybe) someone lost their life.

Love the signs that say "Nothing in this house worth dying for." On the flip side "Nothing in this house is worth killing for."

Even if I had the ability to kill another human being I don't think I'd do it over $100 or ten times that. But then, I'm not a gunner. Life's cheap for gunners.

Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. I give when I can. If I’m ever in dire straits I hope someone is there to lend a hand.

Whats to stop them from killing you anyway.

The robber, here seen as a good guy with a gun, tries to rob me. I should give up what I worked for , probably, so he can stick something in his arm or up his nose. If I resist I am the godless monster. Wow! What logic.

You are on record for the determination of Society. In my estimation, the robber sets 5e value of his life at $100. He is the one willing to risk death for a Cnote.

Got out of the house yesterday and went shopping. Every where I went there were help wanted signs. The would be robber could have gotten a job and put in 6 hours work for $100. For a bonus he could have sold his gun. Why are those of us who work supposed to give up our earnings to those who don’t? Why does that sound like slavery?

Yes, I AM proud to be a worker! Sounds like a union statement doesn’t it?

Channon Gail Christian, aged 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsom Jr., aged 23, were from Knoxville, Tennessee. They were kidnapped on the evening of January 6, 2007, when Christian's vehicle was carjacked. The couple was taken to a rental house. Both of them were raped, tortured, and murdered. Four males and one female were arrested, charged, and convicted in the case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Your trust for criminals is astounding. Hopefully nothing ever happens to anyone you love.

Why did you bail on responding to a couple of accounts in this thread ?

I’ve have never met a military vet who run from a thug. Not one. Do you know why? They attack law abiding citizens and for most of us, they are the same level as a child molester.


Didn’t you claim attending sniper school? . What was your MOS, which post and what year?

Snipers are heroes or zeros depending on the era. During my time in the service they were zeros and none of the branches had an official sniper program. There was no sniper school at that time. I was on the CG rifle team and as such was seen as a pretty good shot.

My unit served as a Provisional Riot Control Battalion. The day job was quartermaster. Our Battalion Commander had grandiose visions and when we were deployed to DC he selected three of the rifle team as "sharpshooters" while deployed. Keep in mind that the First Army designated the battalion as Brave Fox Delta so you have some idea of how seriously the rest of the Army took us.

I did not attend 'Sniper School' and never claimed to have. I did say I served as one of three people who acted as a sniper while in DC for the Vietnam Moratorium and May Day demonstrations. Obviously we were never activated as such. My only reason for relating the story is to indicate my proficiency with guns.

Your experience with vets is different from mine. The people I know evaluate a situation and choose the most likely course to success and survival. FBI victim stats indicate that resistance to an armed robbery put one at a 4x higher risk of harm than not and doing so with a gun puts one at a 5x higher risk. There are old fools and bold fools but no old bold fools.

I couldn’t remember.

What years were you in?

Buy food with that money. Sure he could be a drug addict, but me personally Im not killing anyone over money.

The only thing would be if my children were threatened or harmed. Money never.

In America today, Work has no value to Society I guess.

You deamonize the honest worker and laud the lawless robber. I do not think anyone can take a life and not feel it profoundly. I will bet the honest worker, the guy you demean for defending himself and society, just wanted to keep his money and defend himself. He most probably wanted to stop the threat and not earn a notch on his gun.

No I don't demonize the honest worker nor do I laud anyone else. I demonize the cheapening of life the gun cullture has promoted among gun owners. The fact that one human being would kill another over a few dollars is what I'm demonizing.

Wonderful rosy pictture you paint, pure evil on one side and pure virtue on the other when you have no idea who either of these people are. I don't either. But I do know that life is worth more than property.

Sorry you can't identify with a human life being worth more than an ATM withdrawl. You should be ashamed for devaluing a human being to that degree. It gives me an idea of where to place your humanity quotient.

I think the robber set the value of his life. I would rather that he work for survival than rob. He should have no gun. Sadly, the robber’s trait precedes firearms. Had the robber had no weapon, then the honest worker would not need one either. Life is worth more than property? I did not say that. I said one worked honestly to earn money for food. The other tried to take the value of his work by force. The value of work is more than property - it is food and shelter for self and family. The one who should be ashamed for devaluing life is not me.

Go hug your gun.

You cannot argue or discuss with someone unwilling to reason. You are so single minded on the gun issue you see only that perspective. I know you will keep it up which only helps the Second Amendment. Keep dignifying crime. Now you can stop hounding me.

Victim of robbery has worked for the $. Robber has not. Should the victim give up his earnings, which he needs to feed his family, to the robber, who is not inclined to work, and wants to make money the "easy" way? Should the victim's family starve, so the criminal's family won't? I'd just about bet ya a 100 that the criminal wasn't going to be headed to the grocery store with that money. Not for food for his family.

the Bad Guy threatening to kill the Good Guy. Classic case of self defense.

If the Bad Guy thinks his life is worth only $100, who are we to argue with him.

Yeah a threat is made but most times if the robber gets what he asks for he takes it and runs.

The odds are in favor of compliance if you want to be safe. It sucks but that's what statistics tell us. Nice that this time the robbery victim didn't die. If only one party had a gun, makes no difference which one, probably nobody would have died. No, I can't guarantee it but that's the way things work out most times.

One less dirtbag to hold someone else up.

Anyone who would hold someone up, regardless of what amount, the world is better off without them.

The only good robber, rapist, carjacker, or burglar is one rapidly assuming room temperature from a gaping chest wound.

Like the Old West.

...is illogical.

I read that the police determined that the dead man had a gun after investigating. Funny how gunners automatically jump to the conclusion that every confrontation begins and end with a gun. Of course if it's a Stand Your Ground case it's best to kill the only other witness . . .

Do you take it that the robber had gun back home? He didn’t it need it to prey on other people? The article does not say that! You are amazed at gunners? Because we can read?

Let's say I'm the robber and you're the ATM guy. According to what I've read in the thread your scenario is that I approach you at the ATM with gun drawn pointed at you. "Give me your money!", I demand. There you stand, one hand full of ATM cash and me pointing my gun at you yet you manage to retrieve your concealed carry gun from wherever you have it concealed and kill me before I can get a shot off. Was the ATM guy named Matt Dillon by any chance?

Given that the ATM guy was able to avoid being shot isn't it likely that the robber's gun was still concealed and discovered on his dead body?

My amazement at gunners is the degree to which you guys can fantasize scenarios whereby the bad guy has the drop on you with gun drawn and yet the poor victimized Concealed Carry can, although caught by surprise with a gun pointed at him draw and shoot the vicious gun wielding villain.

Just give the guy the money and nobody dies. Is that so hard to grasp?

However it happened, the good guy is still standing. He did not run. He stayed and cooperated. The police are satisfied.

You anti-gunner mindset continues to skew the situation. The ATM guy worked and earned. Likely, the $100 is more than cash. It is groceries, gas, perhaps part of the rent. He spent time and effort to obtain it.

That part of Houston has many working class people. In today’s hyper inflation $100 is a lot of money. If he had robbed me, I might have made your calculation and given him the money. I can afford it. Please note — giving him the money In no way guarantees that I would live. Street people kill hundreds of people for no reason each week in America today. Get your prejudices in control and view the scenario in terms of todays reality.

do a gunner tactic and ask for data on street people killing hundreds of people a week. The Gunviolence archive doesn't back that up but I'm sure you have reliable data.

My data says that resisting a robbery is 5x more likely to get YOU shot. link All that needed to happen was to give the guy the money and nobody would die.

However you didn't answer my question. How can someone with a concealed gun out draw someone who already has a gun pointed at them? You're good at making stuff up, lets hear how that happens.

However you didn't answer my question. How can someone with a concealed gun out draw someone who already has a gun pointed at them? You're good at making stuff up, lets hear how that happens.

I do not know. We do not know. In the end, the good guy lived and justice prevailed. It happens sometimes.

proud of choosing a few hundred dollars over a human life.

The only place in law that puts a death penalty on robbery is Stand Your Ground. Just give the guy the money and nobody dies.

That $100 may be life for the ATM guy, and maybe others, for a short period. So absolutely dense and self righteous. Absolutely amazing.

Can you guarantee that? Or are you speaking of a "maybe".

Can I guarantee that? No but can you guarantee otherwise? Based on statistics compiled by the NIH and the FBI victims reports we can be sure that a victim is less likely to be injured if they do not resist. Not saying anyone is safe in any criminal act or that there are no injuries or worse but the odds are in favor of compliance. Sucks but that's the way it seems to be.

We can also say with some confidence that if a victim resists an armed robber he is 4x more likely to be shot and 5x more likely to be shot if resisting with a gun.

You may want to play those odds but more often than not it's a losing hand.

What I take from this is that robbers want to rob not kill or harm. They just want stuff you have and if you give it to them more often than not they take it and run.

I've posted links elsewhere in the thread if you want to find them.

That they grasp at straws like this to try to portray the victim as some sociopathic criminal mastermind who valued a few measly dollars over the life of an innocent and misunderstood, down-on-his-luck thief who was probably just trying to feed his family. They fantasize that this armed victim killed the robber in cold blood.

Reality has no basis in the discussion for some of the folks who choose to blame the victim instead of the violent criminal who tried to rob said victim, at gunpoint, at an ATM. They completely ignore that it was the robber’s choices and the robber’s actions that precipitated the event.

None of us get to pick and choose when we might be victimized by a violent criminal, though we can avoid putting ourselves in situations where we are more likely to be victimized. That said, I think visiting the ATM does not qualify as violating one of the ‘rules of stupid.’

Blaming this victim for being armed at the ATM machine is like blaming a sexual assault victim for her attire, or a domestic abuse victim for not leaving her abuser.

Now you’ve got one in this thread flat out saying that the victim who had to defend himself wasn’t a victim at all. Like he planned this whole thing out so he could kill an innocent armed robber. Reality denying responses like those are why I post stories like these. It shines a spotlight on the disingenuous arguments.

"portray the victim as some sociopathic criminal mastermind" Care to back that up with a quote?

"the violent criminal who tried to rob said victim, at gunpoint," Care to back up the 'at gunpoint' quote? All we know is the police found a gun at the scene and the shooter was able to kill him without being shot which indicates to me that there was no "at gunpoint".

"Blaming this victim for being armed at the ATM machine is like blaming a sexual assault victim for her attire, or a domestic abuse victim for not leaving her abuser." I did not do that.

"Now you’ve got one in this thread flat out saying that the victim who had to defend himself wasn’t a victim at all. Like he planned this whole thing out so he could kill an innocent armed robber." I did not do that.

I admire your vivid imagination, perhaps you should take up fiction writing.

What I DID do is say that human life is worth more than a few dollars. I lament the way the gun culture has cheapened life to the point an ATM withdrawl is more valuable that a human life. Any human life.

So then, tell me what is the price of a human life? Is yours worth more than mine, worth more than any of the posters here?

Yeah, gunners always see themselves as victims. So if you feel shamed for putting a few dollars above human life, my job here is done.

All these victim blaming posts aged like milk. I’m not surprised in the least.

Sure is amusing to see how many people tried to claim that the victim killed the robber over a few dollars and not over the fact that the armed robber was threatening the victim’s life over a few dollars. Or that the victim fired and the police found some concealed weapon on the robber after the fact.

I am repeating yet again that human life is worth more than an ATM withdrawl.

The shooter used bad judgement being blinded by gun culture hero syndrome. You are 4x more likely to be shot if you resist and 5x more likely to be shot if you use a gun resisting. Just give the robber the money and everybody has a better chance of leaving un-hurt.

The shooter is indeed a victim; a victim of the brainwashing done to you and the other gunners who beleive that a gun makes you safer. I'll see your countless videos and raise you cold hard facts from the NIH: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Guns do not make you safer, either at home or in public.

He was an innocent person going about his business withdrawing money from an ATM.

Did our victim choose to start this confrontation? No, the armed robber did.

Did our victim force the armed robber to pull out a gun and threaten the victim’s life? Of course not. That choice was made, again, by the armed robber.

The victim chose to defend his life with deadly force when the robber, not the victim, decided that the victim’s life and his own life were worth less than value of the ATM withdrawal.

Once again, there are countless examples readily available of compliant victims being beaten, brutalized, and murdered. You’re free to take your chances with compliance if you’re ever the victim of a violent crime but you’re not free to try to blame the victim for choosing to defend his life, not his property, when he was threatened with deadly force.

This victim blaming nonsense reeks of blaming sexual assault victims for their choice of attire, or not fighting back, or fighting back too much.

It is so transparent, too.

You can also keep believing that guns make you safer but if you're going to play those odds don't get into a poker game with the rent money.

This is the way gunners go about life. Being belligerent, repeating gun lore over and over while ignoring all demonstrable facts and refusing to see the world as it is, preferring to cling to the lies promoted by the gun industry.

I didn't and don't blame the shooter for anything but poor judgment based on gun lore promoted by people deeply inculcated in gun culture, people deluded by organizations like the NRA, the NSSF and those who repeat and promote the lies told them.

One more time; life is worth more than an ATM transaction and you are far safer simply handing over the money and not resisting. Facts back this up.

It isn’t an indisputable fact?

So if someone is pointing a gun at a victim and demands your car keys, wallet, and phone, then you hand them over, and that person shoots the victim, who made that decision?

The data refute that.

I looked over the thread and seems like as many people saying what I am as backing the shoot 'em up philosophy.

Read what I wrote this time.

situation fabricated from gun lore. The facts are that fewer people are injured when they do not resist than when they do. Resisting an armed robbery is far more dangerous than complying and resisting with a gun is 20% more dangerous yet.

Fantasize all you want, I'm not playing by gunner rules.

The indisputable fact is that if you choose to be compliant in the face of a deadly threat from a violent, armed attacker, you're allowing that attacker to decide whether you live or die.

You are arguing that statistically, the odds are better if a victim chooses to comply, but that doesn’t change the indisputable fact that the armed attacker ultimately makes the decision whether or not he murders the victim.

I’m not nearly as rigid in my thinking as you, nor am I married to some specific dogma. I can envision scenarios that I would not have an opportunity to defend myself from an attacker or multiple attackers and where compliance would be my best option.

I can just as easily envision scenarios where I’d have a window of opportunity to defend myself.

At the end of the day I am confident in my abilities and instincts. I’ve practiced with my carry weapon to the point that I am proficient and comfortable. I can draw quickly and shoot accurately.

Do you suggest that my life experiences, background, athleticism, and my training, give me the same chances of a successful resistance as, say, an untrained, frail, and elderly person? Or teenager? Or even a young adult who has no training at all?

This is one of the reasons that I strongly advocate for minimum standards for concealed carry licenses—everyone who makes the choice to carry a weapon should be trained to the point of proficiency with it.

Do you suggest that my life experiences, background, athleticism, and my training, give me the same chances of a successful resistance as, say, an untrained, frail, and elderly person? Or teenager? Or even a young adult who has no training at all?

Thank you for choosing not to blame the victim in this case and thank you for finally agreeing that the violent attacker decides whether or not he murders his victim.

We are making progress!

Statistics don’t say anything about your individual odds or
my individual odds. They’re an aggregate.

You don’t really believe that a Navy Seal, Army Ranger, or anyone else with extensive experience and training, has the same odds as a 95 year old grandmother, do you?

You don’t really believe that a Navy Seal, Army Ranger, or anyone else with extensive experience and training, has the same odds as a 95 year old grandmother, do you?

Statistics do not predict your individual odds, my individual odds, or anyone else’s individual odds. They’re an aggregate.

You can try to argue until you’re blue in the face that a highly trained special forces operator has the same odds of successfully defending himself as a frail 95 year old woman confined to a wheelchair, but that still isn’t how statistics work.

The last study you linked indicates that people who have guns in their household are more likely to be victims of gun crime.

As I am not a victim or perpetrator of domestic violence, I am not involved in any criminal activity, and have extensive firearms experience and training, what are my odds?

You’ve got studies that are able to control for those factors, right?

As I am not a victim or perpetrator of domestic violence, I am not involved in any criminal activity, and have extensive firearms experience and training, what are my odds?

You do think that a highly trained special forces operator would have the same odds of successfully defending himself as a frail 95 year old woman?

It’s a simple question. Yes or no?

Despite the simplicity of the question I’m not holding my breath waiting for an answer LOL.

better possibility of success than the hypothetical 95 year old woman (why reference a woman?)

My response is more to the possibility that having a gun will make you more likely to be shot. About the same odds as anyone else which is what statistics predict.

BTW every concealed carry license, every former military/police and just about every other gunner I've ever talked to was an exception to the statistical probabilities.

Just about every very one. What are the odds of that many exceptions . . .

I could have said 3rd grader and it would have gotten the point across just the same.

Considering that highly trained military / police veterans make up a very small percentage of the population, I don’t see the issue with that number of exceptions.

I make no claim of exceptions for untrained, unpracticed, and unprepared people regardless of their concealed carry license status.

The statistics apply to you too. Perhaps in the hypothetical situation you conjure up you will have an advantage. The statistical analysis applies to the population at large of which you are a member. People who have guns are more likely to get shot.

This a tactic I'm familiar with. Create a hypothetical situation that fits a specific argument instead of the topic under discussion. I'll be waiting for the zombie apocalypse or the attack of dozen rabid racoons. Anytime the facts don't fit your argument create a different argument.

People who have guns are more likely to be shot. Guns do not make you safer at home or in public.

Where did I say that I am the only exception?

I’ve noticed that in post after post you attribute things to me that I’ve never said, then attack those things that I’ve never said, in some sort of attempt to argue against a position you wish I would take instead of one I’ve actually taken.

Why? I’m genuinely curious.

It would be a lot more productive if you’d address what I actually say if you’re interested in some sort of discussion.

Statistics don’t say anything about your individual odds or
my individual odds. They’re an aggregate.

Don’t see anything where I’ve said I’m the only exception.

Try again.

When to we get to the rabid racoons?

When I'm engaging with someone I try to use the words they're using, in the context I think they're using them, so that we can have a meaningful discussion.

What I've written is that people's life experiences and physical attributes impact the statistical odds of a successful defensive encounter. You initially had difficulty accepting that statistics don't predict an individual's odds of success, but you did accept that in post #56 where you wrote:

I don't like doing cut n paste but you cram so much deflection and red herring into one post there's no other way to deal with it.

What I've written is that people's life experiences and physical attributes impact the statistical odds of a successful defensive encounter. You initially had difficulty accepting that statistics don't predict an individual's odds of success, but you did accept that in post #56 where you wrote:
but under most circumstances you have arguably a better possibility of success than the hypothetical 95 year old woman

Now, given that we've accepted that different people, with different levels of experience, training, life skills, athleticism, etc, will have different odds of successfully defending themselves, why would you then regress to your previous position in post #58?

You're trying to make your argument while avoiding hypothetical scenarios but given the rarity of gun violence and even rarer defensive gun uses, hypotheticals are a necessary evil. I've only personally been involved in one defensive gun use and I am unlikely to ever be in that same situation, or even a remotely similar situation, ever again.

We talk about hypothetical situations we can envision but they're based off real scenarios that can and do happen, like the ATM robbery, or the active shooter at the mall, or the home invasion. Despite the extremely low chance I will ever encounter something like one of those scenarios, they're still far more likely than encountering a similar scenario to what I faced in the previously mentioned defensive gun use and yet that actually happened.

I keep repeating that having a gun puts you at more risk of being shot. Period. End of statement.

In any made up scenario the hero syndrome kicks in and Bang! the bad guy is dead. In real life you are 5x more likely to be shot than shooting someone. Period. End of statement.

This true for all people of all skill levels and all life experiences. Period. End of statement.

This is what is indisputabe. Period. End of statement.

Grandious self estimation is going to get you killed.

I think we've exhausted the topic. Good day and good luck, you're going to need it.

the statistics and the science are what they are. You can feel free to dispute the studies showing that defensive gun use is effective if you like but you'll need to find some different studies than what you've cited in the past, as none of them are specific to defensive gun use.

I'll leave you with this:

A human life is worth more than an ATM withdrawl.

If I blame the shooter for anything it's using poor judgement based on gun lore and good guy with a gun syndrome. He (and anyone else) is less likely to be hurt in an armed robbery by complying instead of resisting and resisting with a gun puts you at 20% greater risk.

It's just science.

That is a disingenuous mischaracterization and not at all in keeping with the reality of what we know about what happened.

A violent, armed robber pulled a gun on a victim at an ATM machine. That victim, faced with a deadly threat and a gun wielding assailant, drew his own firearm and exchanged gunfire with the armed robber--not to save a dollar but to save his own life.

The robber was the one who chose to place the value of the ATM withdrawal over the life of his victim and his own life, the victim did not make that decision.

You're trying to apply blanket statistics to the victim without knowing any of the meaningful details of the encounter. What was the victim's background? Level of training? Experience with firearms?

Did the armed robber make verbal of physical threats of violence prior to the victim choosing to draw instead of comply? Did something happen that gave the victim a window of opportunity to draw his own firearm while the assailant's attention was diverted?

We don't know the answer to those questions but they'll all factor in to the statistical dice roll determining his success or failure. The only things we do know for sure are that the violent criminal initiated the encounter, fired shots at the victim, and the victim prevailed--statistics be damned.

We don't know any of this. It is all pure supposition to fit your position. In your own post you jump back and forth between purporting hard evidence to did the robber do this or that? and "We don't know the answer to those questions "

What we do know is that a man is dead over an ATM withdrawal when the robbery victim was less likely to be harmed if he surrendered the money than resisted. In this case the victim was lucky and beat the odds assuming all is as the shooter reported to the police, another thing we don't know.

Boy, talk about a disingenuous presentation (won't say misrepresentation because as you said, we don't know).

I posted what we do know based on what has been reported and then, separately, posted questions that we don't know the answer to. Just because you don't like what has been reported doesn't change the fact that it's been reported.

A man is dead because he made the choice to commit an armed robbery of an innocent victim. The dead man chose to value the victim's ATM withdrawal over the victim's life and his own life. The victim did not make that choice.

The victim was prepared and defended his life, quite successfully. No amount of victim blaming will change the facts here.

I guess you missed the worst ones.

There were posts about people being killed and their comments were like “ more for the altar of the NRA / 2nd Amendment “. Never mentioned a word about the loss or effects of family/friends/ or people who had to try to save someone.

I’ve told this one other time, I was the first in the room, to work on a 12 year old girl. Who been gut shot. It’s was H&R .410 shotgun. Nothing I could do would save her.

So I do what I can to train/ teach and educate. Guns aren’t going away and that’s the best option I have.

It’s really weird but I have a rule.

Never trust a criminal with your life. Not for a second, they can grab you and force you to do this

Channon Gail Christian, aged 21, and Hugh Christopher Newsom Jr., aged 23, were from Knoxville, Tennessee. They were kidnapped on the evening of January 6, 2007, when Christian's vehicle was carjacked. The couple was taken to a rental house. Both of them were raped, tortured, and murdered. Four males and one female were arrested, charged, and convicted in the case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Try to rape and or kill me.
$100 is not enough to kill someone, maybe in normal situations. But this isn’t an ordinary situation. Is $100 worth risking getting shot for? Ask the robber.

There is a issue here that statistics dictate probability. This would be incorrect. Statistics look at past history. Probability is projection of possible future events and outcomes.

I once had a relevant discussion with a taxi driver in Atlanta. Over a number of years that I don't remember, he hadn't been successfully robbed or injured. One could guess that, since he was driving me to an area neighboring a section informally known as "the bluff", that either he didn't go there often or that he was a statistically anomaly. IMO one factor in his favor was his history with SEAL Team Two.

YMMV

One less dirtbag.

appears, the immediate reaction is that the person with the gun is in the wrong.

This article: "Life's pretty cheap for gunners", " Okay, you're on record for a human life being worth maybe $100. Duly noted", "Clearly life has no value, at least not to gunners".

The article with the bad guys kicking in the door: "I have no sympathy for gun owners who treat home defense as a joke"