Another Robber wide open to counter attack

[arnisador]

Again, we're back to this.....they did NOTHING but hope and pray THIS goblin held his fire, they did NOTHING to ensure he wouldn't.

That isn't clear to me. I couldn't hear what they were saying or see what everyone was doing. You seem to equate 'not shooting' with 'not reacting'.

What was the special 'Good Guy Robber' sign he gave, that he wasn't going to shoot anyone?

I don't know, but their intuition was right, no? Don't you use intuition and basic human psychology to predict others' actions?

You keep ACTING as though YOUR way is guaranteed to get you home safe......yet you've been provided statistics and examples of MANY situations where it's done nothing but gotten folks killed.

My way is to use your best judgment when deciding whether to fight or not. Your way seems to be to always fight. No approach is guaranteed to always get you back home safely. But using your judgment to determine the wisest course of action is probably a better course of action than always shooting.

I think it's been established that there are statistics (and hence examples) and experts on both sides of this. Looking at the studies, the devil is in the details. The definitions of resistance and whether the resistance 'provoked' further violence vary widely. I mentioned one and the response was to attack the author as biased rather than the study as flawed. I don't intend to keep posting studies because I do not believe it would be possible to alter your opinion by any number thereof. Until the DOJ gives an authoritative opinion, it would serve no purpose. No one's mind would be changed.

The passengers on the flights on 9/11 were following your advice.....and we know how that turned out.

I'm not the original source of that advice. It came from the U.S. government. It worked well for a long time in terms of keeping deaths down. Then things changed.

Your use of 9/11 is inflammatory. But I fail to see how it helps your point...both those passengers who resisted and those who did not died in the crashes.

And we are still devoid of an equal number of contrary examples of resistance GETTING folks killed.....yes, they have happened.......but not NEARLY at the same rate. The numbers seem to support our position.

If this is so, why isn't the advice to resist common from police depts., employers, etc.? Just the opposite is the case.

 

[arnisador]

Yet you can't tell us the difference without watching it on video and seeing the END!

But you can?

 

[elder999]

Yet you can't tell us the difference without watching it on video and seeing the END!

Well, since the customer clearly isn't armed, at least, not visibly enough that we can make any other determination based on the video, the first option you've posited, that of "ARMED RESISTANCE!" wasn't an option at all. Based, again, on the meager evidence of the video, the second option, "flee," probably wasn't available because the robber is between him and the door. This brings us to the third option, "unarmed resistance," which I really think has been the main theme of this discussion, and might not have taken place for any of the reasons I posted above, as well as some others-all things we can't determine from the video, though we could might make some guesses based upon the customers actions, such as his quick and ready compliance. Which brings us to the last option in your set of responses, "compliance," which appears to have worked in this case.

Getting back to "ARMED RESISTANCE," though, this still brings us back to my whole set of questions from my first post, as well as several others, such as:

If the customer were carrying, was he carrying in a way that he could readily access the weapon, or was it someplace that didn't lend itself to drawing, like an ankle holster?

If it were in an ankle holster, might his best chance of resisting have been to feign compliance, and go to the floor to facilitate drawing his weapon?

I'm sure we can think of some others. The real point to discussions like this one (for me, anyway) is not to determine what was done "wrong" or "right," or what "I would have done if I'd been in his place," but to speculate (because that's all we really can do) about those unseen things, and how they might or might not have altered the situation, and why.

You, for instance, seem to be saying that if the customer had been armed, he wouldn't have been robbed, and the robber would be shot
possibly dead, which brings up a whole category of people for whom this might not be a desirable outcome. It also raises the possibility of a shootout at close range in a public place, which brings up a whole category of people and circumstances for whom this might not be a desirable outcome.

None of which we can determine from the video evidence-again. Though we should, perhaps, discuss......

Notwithstanding, of course, that if we assume he was armed (rather than assuming that he wasn't, since that appears to be the case) and look at that list of factors I initially posted, they all still potentially apply.......

 

[sgtmac_46]

But you can?

Nope, which is why I choose not to rely on the good will of the criminal sociopath to determine outcome, if I can at ALL avoid it...THANK YOU FOR PLAYING!

Your entire position is predicated on a falsehood.....that YOU can somehow, through impressive verbal and non-verbal communication, control the decision of the robber......and you can't! He controls the entire situation so long as you grant him that control, and YOUR life is ENTIRELY in his hands should you simply acquiesce to his will.

By fleeing or shooting the robber, however, you take his control away.

Now, there may be times when has absolute control over you.......but at no point while acquiescing to his control do YOU have any measure of control......you've given it up. Cooperation is not a plan so much as a plea for the bad man not to be 'too bad', one he can choose to listen to or not.

 

[sgtmac_46]

...and you wouldn't know whether opening fire would be a success or failure until the guy was dead.

These people saw the whole scene and were in a much better position to 'read' the robber and know their own abilities and limitations. What they did worked. It might not on another day. But I'm not the one missing the point. In this case we know they made the right decision. In the case in this thread, it worked. This isn't another case than the one it is.

These people hoped that the sociopath wouldn't kill them.....that was hope, not an action. He chose not to, which is the ONLY reason it ended the way it did.....the OUTCOME was entirely in the hands of the criminal....ENTIRELY! They are complete passive victims, entirely at his mercy, or lack thereof. That is where you're confused.

If someone SHOOTS the criminal, however, the outcome is no longer in the hands of the criminal.......they have taken control of the situation. If someone flees, likewise.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That isn't clear to me. I couldn't hear what they were saying or see what everyone was doing. You seem to equate 'not shooting' with 'not reacting'.

That makes no difference......we're back to the assumption that you have some control with your words.......but the only control you have is the control given to you by the sociopath holding the gun. The CHOICES ARE ALL HIS!

I don't know, but their intuition was right, no? Don't you use intuition and basic human psychology to predict others' actions?

They're intuition was no more right than the DEAD folks who had the same 'intuition' with a different outcome.......the deciding factor was the CRIMINAL, not them......he chose not to shoot them. They had no control because they exerted none.

Also, as an aside, one of the traits of officers killed in the line of duty, as determined by FBI studies, is those officers likely to be killed in the line of duty are those that believe they an 'read people' and 'perceive good'. Do you know what the best indicator in this scenario is? THE FACT THAT A MAN IS POINTING A GUN AT YOU! If you can't read that as bad news, there's a problem.

My way is to use your best judgment when deciding whether to fight or not. Your way seems to be to always fight. No approach is guaranteed to always get you back home safely. But using your judgment to determine the wisest course of action is probably a better course of action than always shooting.

You're actually creating a strawman now.....you're the one endorsing 'COOPERATION' is usually best....and i've attacked that. But the statistics show that

1) Armed Resistance has the best outcome.
2) Fleeing the second best
3) Unarmed Resistance
4) Cooperation has the WORST number of outcomes...

Facts is facts....

And you've FAILED to explain to me what 'judgement' is being used in any of these situations that separates them.......other than 'it felt this way'.

I think it's been established that there are statistics (and hence examples) and experts on both sides of this. Looking at the studies, the devil is in the details. The definitions of resistance and whether the resistance 'provoked' further violence vary widely. I mentioned one and the response was to attack the author as biased rather than the study as flawed. I don't intend to keep posting studies because I do not believe it would be possible to alter your opinion by any number thereof. Until the DOJ gives an authoritative opinion, it would serve no purpose. No one's mind would be changed.

Because the facts don't support your position.

I'm not the original source of that advice. It came from the U.S. government. It worked well for a long time in terms of keeping deaths down. Then things changed.

It would seem clear at this point that far more lives have been lost heeding that advice.....it was bad advice from the beginning.

Your use of 9/11 is inflammatory. But I fail to see how it helps your point...both those passengers who resisted and those who did not died in the crashes.

INFLAMMATORY?! No, given that we are discussing 'Cooperating' versus 'Resisting' the issue of 9/11 is MUCH APPLICABLE!

If this is so, why isn't the advice to resist common from police depts., employers, etc.? Just the opposite is the case.

Perceived liability......in the instance of EMPLOYERS it based on the notion that encouraging employees to fight back might open them to civil liability regardless of the outcome.......while encouraging cooperationg, even if it gets employees killed, doesn't........and they can ALWAYS HIRE MORE EMPLOYEES AND MOP THE FLOORS!

Asking why some people give bad advice isn't really an argument in support of bad advice......a PERFECT example, if you're recall, was that POLICE DEPARTMENTS were telling folks to pull up under over-passes when confronted by tornadoes, and use them as shelter, in the wake of a very famous tornado video........we subsequently found out that over-passes act as WIND TUNNELS and INCREASE WINDSPEED! In the Oklahoma city tornodoes that advice got a NUMBER OF FOLKS KILLED!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, since the customer clearly isn't armed, at least, not visibly enough that we can make any other determination based on the video, the first option you've posited, that of "ARMED RESISTANCE!" wasn't an option at all. Based, again, on the meager evidence of the video, the second option, "flee," probably wasn't available because the robber is between him and the door. This brings us to the third option, "unarmed resistance," which I really think has been the main theme of this discussion, and might not have taken place for any of the reasons I posted above, as well as some others-all things we can't determine from the video, though we could might make some guesses based upon the customers actions, such as his quick and ready compliance. Which brings us to the last option in your set of responses, "compliance," which appears to have worked in this case.

Getting back to "ARMED RESISTANCE," though, this still brings us back to my whole set of questions from my first post, as well as several others, such as:

If the customer were carrying, was he carrying in a way that he could readily access the weapon, or was it someplace that didn't lend itself to drawing, like an ankle holster?

If it were in an ankle holster, might his best chance of resisting have been to feign compliance, and go to the floor to facilitate drawing his weapon?

I'm sure we can think of some others. The real point to discussions like this one (for me, anyway) is not to determine what was done "wrong" or "right," or what "I would have done if I'd been in his place," but to speculate (because that's all we really can do) about those unseen things, and how they might or might not have altered the situation, and why.

You, for instance, seem to be saying that if the customer had been armed, he wouldn't have been robbed, and the robber would be shot
possibly dead, which brings up a whole category of people for whom this might not be a desirable outcome. It also raises the possibility of a shootout at close range in a public place, which brings up a whole category of people and circumstances for whom this might not be a desirable outcome.

None of which we can determine from the video evidence-again. Though we should, perhaps, discuss......

Notwithstanding, of course, that if we assume he was armed (rather than assuming that he wasn't, since that appears to be the case) and look at that list of factors I initially posted, they all still potentially apply.......

I'll keep the response short to avoid confusing the issue......STATISTICALLY, the most EFFECTIVE RESPONSE to armed robbery, the response MOST LIKELY to result in a positive outcome for the victim, is an ARMED RESPONSE!

Situations vary, and each situations details change......but as a WHOLE an armed response is the one most likely to insure the survival of the victim. That is my point.

COOPERATION should be the last resort, not the first. Cooperation should be the resort of last option, not as some here believe, THE FIRST!

It's counter-intuitive to many folks, I acknowledge......but putting your life ENTIRELY IN THE HANDS of bad men with guns isn't a good survival strategy.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A question comes to mind on the subject of robbery......what would happen, in this day and age, if someone jumped up on a plane and yelled 'Hi-jacking!'......even assuming there was no Air Marshall!

We all know what would happen.......likely whoever it was would get beaten to death by a dozen passengers........why? They've conditioned themselves to the idea that, if someone tries to hi-jack the airplane, they are going to FIGHT!

Airline flights have become hardened targets, not just because of security and Air Marshalls, but because of the passengers themselves......after 9/11 they REFUSE to be passive victims of a hi-jacking.

In order for robberies and hi-jackings to be successful the victims have cooperate.

 

[elder999]

COOPERATION should be the last resort, not the first. Cooperation should be the resort of last option, not as some here believe, THE FIRST!

It's not at all counter-intuitive for me. We're in agreement on this. THe simple logic of it: you must decide if he's going to shoot you or not. Given the assumed unknowns (remember, we don't know if the customer knew the robber or not) you can't have any confidence in that decision either way. Therefore, the best response is to act as though he's going to shoot you.

We're also in agreement on armed response-though this isn't always an option, often for some of the reasons listed by others.

Surely, you're not advocating that everyone go armed, all the time, in anticipation of being party to events such as these, are you? :lol:

In any case, cooperation appears to have worked just fine in this instance, and, as I said, there could be a long list of reasons why resistance wasn't. More to the point, some of those reasons could be more than simply circumstantial, they could be conditional: the option for response might not be graded in terms of "statistical likelihood of positive outcome" and instead based on "individual likelihood of positive outcome." If the individual had some physical impairment: visual, physical, chronic pain, limited arm movement armed response might not be a viable first option, just as fleeing might not, just as unarmed response certainly might not. There are also a variety of emotional reasons, as well as some intellectual ones. And, not in the least, there is the variant of social conditioning: individuals will respond how they are trained. In the absence of training for an armed response, or an unarmed one, or the best way to flee, individuals are often trained to comply, and never mind statistic likelihood of success.

Bottom line: while the statistical lesson is valuable, it can't be applied to every situation, because it simply can't be applied to every individual. Not everyone will be armed. Not everyone will be capable of responding-even if they are armed. Not every situation will present itself as viable for any response other than compliance, and we can't tell from the video where on that spectrum this situation falls; there are too many unknowns.

"What if" is a valuable training tool, but it works a variety of ways-it doesn't end with "if he had a gun, he could have stopped him," and it doesn't end with,"the robber left lots of opportunity to counter attack." We have to ask ourselves to think of all the possible "whys": why didn't he counter-attack?, why wasn't he armed? We then have to ask the other "what ifs?" "What if he were armed?Why wouldn't (or shouldn't) he counter attack then?"

 

[MA-Caver]

A question comes to mind on the subject of robbery......what would happen, in this day and age, if someone jumped up on a plane and yelled 'Hi-jacking!'......even assuming there was no Air Marshall!

We all know what would happen.......likely whoever it was would get beaten to death by a dozen passengers........why? They've conditioned themselves to the idea that, if someone tries to hi-jack the airplane, they are going to FIGHT!

Airline flights have become hardened targets, not just because of security and Air Marshalls, but because of the passengers themselves......after 9/11 they REFUSE to be passive victims of a hi-jacking.

In order for robberies and hi-jackings to be successful the victims have cooperate.

Yes but that was before anyone came up with the (actually brilliant) idea of turning an entire jet liner full of fuel into a air to ground missile. Before you had a very good chance of getting a free ride to a foreign country and MAYBE not get blown up in the process of negotiations and then another free ride back home with stories to tell your grand-children.
Now, it's a do or die situation.
Quite different from a fast-food robbery. Unless they start blowing themselves up over here with bombs strapped to their chest like they're doing over there.

You have to admit, we are by and large a nation of sheeple. Not many of us are sheepdogs and thankfully (proportionally) a few of us are actually wolves.

Bottom line: while the statistical lesson is valuable, it can't be applied to every situation, because it simply can't be applied to every individual. Not everyone will be armed. Not everyone will be capable of responding-even if they are armed. Not every situation will present itself as viable for any response other than compliance, and we can't tell from the video where on that spectrum this situation falls; there are too many unknowns.

"What if" is a valuable training tool, but it works a variety of ways-it doesn't end with "if he had a gun, he could have stopped him," and it doesn't end with,"the robber left lots of opportunity to counter attack." We have to ask ourselves to think of all the possible "whys": why didn't he counter-attack?, why wasn't he armed? We then have to ask the other "what ifs?" "What if he were armed?Why wouldn't (or shouldn't) he counter attack then?"

Agreed!

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's not at all counter-intuitive for me. We're in agreement on this. THe simple logic of it: you must decide if he's going to shoot you or not. Given the assumed unknowns (remember, we don't know if the customer knew the robber or not) you can't have any confidence in that decision either way. Therefore, the best response is to act as though he's going to shoot you.

We're also in agreement on armed response-though this isn't always an option, often for some of the reasons listed by others.

Surely, you're not advocating that everyone go armed, all the time, in anticipation of being party to events such as these, are you? :lol:

I go armed ALL THE TIME, in anticipation of being party to events such as this......I can't speak for what others should or shouldn't do.

In any case, cooperation appears to have worked just fine in this instance, and, as I said, there could be a long list of reasons why resistance wasn't. More to the point, some of those reasons could be more than simply circumstantial, they could be conditional: the option for response might not be graded in terms of "statistical likelihood of positive outcome" and instead based on "individual likelihood of positive outcome." If the individual had some physical impairment: visual, physical, chronic pain, limited arm movement armed response might not be a viable first option, just as fleeing might not, just as unarmed response certainly might not. There are also a variety of emotional reasons, as well as some intellectual ones. And, not in the least, there is the variant of social conditioning: individuals will respond how they are trained. In the absence of training for an armed response, or an unarmed one, or the best way to flee, individuals are often trained to comply, and never mind statistic likelihood of success.

Bottom line: while the statistical lesson is valuable, it can't be applied to every situation, because it simply can't be applied to every individual. Not everyone will be armed. Not everyone will be capable of responding-even if they are armed. Not every situation will present itself as viable for any response other than compliance, and we can't tell from the video where on that spectrum this situation falls; there are too many unknowns.

"What if" is a valuable training tool, but it works a variety of ways-it doesn't end with "if he had a gun, he could have stopped him," and it doesn't end with,"the robber left lots of opportunity to counter attack." We have to ask ourselves to think of all the possible "whys": why didn't he counter-attack?, why wasn't he armed? We then have to ask the other "what ifs?" "What if he were armed?Why wouldn't (or shouldn't) he counter attack then?"

Yes, but all those ENDORSING this as an example of why you should cooperate....CANNOT, and HAVE NOT pointed to one single variable different here from similar incidents where the cooperative victims were shot.......EXCEPT the end of the video where no one was shot. Ergo, they can't point to a single point of difference between the two, OTHER than the unpredictable outcome. Hence, there is no lesson to be learned about when to COOPERATE as they prescribe.......so we're back at looking at statistics.

Now, if you could get robbers to join the ROBBERS Union, and force them to throw down the 'Good Guy Robber in Good Standing' card to show that they are a member in good standing, and are duty bound not to shoot anyone who cooperates, then the 'Cooperation' crowd will have a point.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes but that was before anyone came up with the (actually brilliant) idea of turning an entire jet liner full of fuel into a air to ground missile. Before you had a very good chance of getting a free ride to a foreign country and MAYBE not get blown up in the process of negotiations and then another free ride back home with stories to tell your grand-children.

And the enemy used that against them, didn't they? The enemy KNEW that simply yelling 'Hi-Jacking' would bring compliance, and used that as a weapon to kill thousands.

Now, hi-jacking is a thing of the past in the US......because regardless of the INTENT of the hi-jackers, they can't control the passengers......it won't happen again, because you will never again have cooperative passengers.





And actually it was Tom Clancy that came up with the idea of using a jetliner as a weapon to destroy the US Capitol building in 1994 in his book 'Debt of Honor'.

Now, it's a do or die situation.
Quite different from a fast-food robbery. Unless they start blowing themselves up over here with bombs strapped to their chest like they're doing over there.

It was actually always do or die, folks just were operating under some false assumptions.....now the veil has been lifted!

You have to admit, we are by and large a nation of sheeple. Not many of us are sheepdogs and thankfully (proportionally) a few of us are actually wolves.


Agreed!

We are.....mostly because we are taught to be so.

 

[elder999]

And actually it was Tom Clancy that came up with the idea of using a jetliner as a weapon to destroy the US Capitol building in 1994 in his book 'Debt of Honor'. .

Actually, Howard Hughes supposedly came up with the idea in the 60's, and the RAND corporation did an interesting study back in the 70's and another in the 80's, with a variety of aircraft and potential targets.NORAD had several drills with jets as weapons throughout both decades and into the 90's.

Yes, but all those ENDORSING this as an example of why you should cooperate....CANNOT, and HAVE NOT pointed to one single variable different here from similar incidents where the cooperative victims were shot.......EXCEPT the end of the video where no one was shot.

Well, maybe I missed it-I'm sometimes slow like that-but I didn't see anyone "endorsing this particular instance" as an example of why "you should cooperate." All I saw was some individuals saying that in this instance it worked, and it did. Like I said, broader questions might be directed towards his quick compliance-he tosses his wallet on the floor almost immediately. Did he know the guy? While not as good as a "good guy robber union card" ( :lol: ) this might influence one's actions towards compliance-or not.

I go armed ALL THE TIME, in anticipation of being party to events such as this......I can't speak for what others should or shouldn't do.

Well, if I understand correctly, that's part of your professional duty anyway. Some of us don't have the option of going armed ALL of THE TIME, in anticipation of anything.

Some of us surely shouldn't ever go armed-at any time.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As to the police, and what they suggest you should do......police doctrine is constantly evolving as well.......prior to Columbine, the standard police practice in the event of an armed gunmen situation was to....

1) Set up a perimeter
2) Attempt to make communication with the gunmen
3) Negotiate....

And the result was simply to allow the gunmen more time to kill more victims....

Now we operate under the doctrine of the ACTIVE SHOOTER! Law Enforcement officers are taught to enter the building as quickly as possible, locate the shooter, and neutralize him as quickly as possible.



A similar situation has involved the civilian response to being in an active shooter situation.......much the same mindset has always been applied to dealing with that as robbery.....escape if you can, hide if you can, and if confronted, COOPERATE!

Well, the cooperate advice is guaranteed death in an active shooter situation.......so now many schools are doing the unTHINKABLE! They are teaching students that if they can't escape or hide, they should.......FIGHT!

Yes, they should fight, they should, as a group, use the SPIDER MONKEY defense........throw whatever objects they can find at the active shooter, and if several can get close enough, WRESTLE THE GUN AWAY!

Now there are some who are horrified by this suggestion......the notion that they should calmly wait their turn, head down, passively, so as not to ANGER the gunmen even more seems a better strategy to those folks.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, maybe I missed it-I'm sometimes slow like that-but I didn't see anyone "endorsing this particular instance" as an example of why "you should cooperate." All I saw was some individuals saying that in this instance it worked, and it did. Like I said, broader questions might be directed towards his quick compliance-he tosses his wallet on the floor almost immediately. Did he know the guy? While not as good as a "good guy robber union card" ( :lol: ) this might influence one's actions towards compliance-or not.

If it's not an endorsement, saying it worked would be kind of stating the obvious......when someone points at something at 'working' they are usually referring to their pet theory of an action in practice. But since we can't point to anything but us already knowing the outcome as to knowing why in THIS situation it worked, it's a moot point. And actually 'It' didn't work, this robber chose not to shoot anyone......there is nothing the victims did that did or did not 'work'.......the choice was entirely that of the robber.....THAT is my point. He dictates, when you cooperate, how the situation turns out. You have no control.

Well, if I understand correctly, that's part of your professional duty anyway. Some of us don't have the option of going armed ALL of THE TIME, in anticipation of anything.

Some of us surely shouldn't ever go armed-at any time.

Perhaps some of you shouldn't, but most of you should have the choice whether to walk in public armed. We live in a free society, and we see much evidence from the sections of our society more free than others, that legally armed citizens are NOT remotely a threat to public safety.....in many instances they are just the opposite.

 

[arnisador]

Your entire position is predicated on a falsehood.....that YOU can somehow, through impressive verbal and non-verbal communication, control the decision of the robber.

That's not what I've been saying at all. It's the position you'd like to argue against, perhaps, but it isn't mine.

That is where you're confused.

Having refactored my position into what you'd like it to be, you are now being dismissive.

You're actually creating a strawman now.....you're the one endorsing 'COOPERATION' is usually best....

No, you're the one saying that I'm saying that. I'm saying it's sometimes best...and worked fine in the case in this thread.

Asking why some people give bad advice isn't really an argument in support of bad advice......

Sorry, I was too subtle. When everyone else's advice conflicts so widely with the advice you're giving, does it ever make you wonder if there's another reasonable way to view things?

COOPERATION should be the last resort, not the first.

Here's where we most clearly disagree: I don't think it's always the last choice. I think it depends on the situation.

Airline flights have become hardened targets, not just because of security and Air Marshalls, but because of the passengers themselves......after 9/11 they REFUSE to be passive victims of a hi-jacking.

It's also much harder to get bombs and guns on board now, meaning the hijackers are less likely to be well-armed and hence the passengers' unarmed response would be more likely to succeed. Of course, the situation has changed, which is my point--if someone has a bomb and wants to go to Cuba, fly him there. If someone has a boxcutter and wants to go to the Pentagon, it's a different matter. Different situations are different, and one must assess them and make a judgment as to the best course of action.

You seem to view the world through the eyes of someone who always has a firearm on his person. Good for you, but will my 14 year old daughter, now studying JKD/FMA and BJJ, be able to get a CCW permit? I've worked at DOD/DOE jobs where bringing a gun in would've gotten me arrested then fired. At one location I couldn't even have left it in the car (and they had very little sense of humour about things like this). It's not always an option.

I doubt that further discussion could be fruitful.

 

[elder999]

I've worked at DOD/DOE jobs where bringing a gun in would've gotten me arrested then fired. At one location I couldn't even have left it in the car (and they had very little sense of humour about things like this). It's not always an option..

Never mind those itty-bitty knives that are the only ones permitted...:lfao:

I'm always armed: Mont Blanc pen.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That's not what I've been saying at all. It's the position you'd like to argue against, perhaps, but it isn't mine.

Please....if you can't predict how the robber is going to act before hand, then what you're plan is built around is a wild guess.....unless there's something else you haven't added.

Having refactored my position into what you'd like it to be, you are now being dismissive.

Feel free to restate your position, in short. If i've misunderstood, please feel free to clarify.

No, you're the one saying that I'm saying that. I'm saying it's sometimes best...and worked fine in the case in this thread.

It's what I understood you to say, if it's not what you meant, feel free to clarify.

Sorry, I was too subtle. When everyone else's advice conflicts so widely with the advice you're giving, does it ever make you wonder if there's another reasonable way to view things?

'Everyone else' isn't conflicting with my advice, you are. Please don't insult both of us by making the assumption that you speak for 'everyone'.

Here's where we most clearly disagree: I don't think it's always the last choice. I think it depends on the situation.

And yet HERE AGAIN you fail to explain the difference between near identical situations where the gunman DOES shoot the victims and DOESN'T.......except to point to the video and say you know because you saw the outcome. Hardly a clarification of 'depends on the situation' since you as much admit that you don't the difference between those situations.

It's also much harder to get bombs and guns on board now, meaning the hijackers are less likely to be well-armed and hence the passengers' unarmed response would be more likely to succeed. Of course, the situation has changed, which is my point--if someone has a bomb and wants to go to Cuba, fly him there. If someone has a boxcutter and wants to go to the Pentagon, it's a different matter. Different situations are different, and one must assess them and make a judgment as to the best course of action.

9/11 was not committed with bombs and guns......it was committed with box-cutters........

........and now you're wanting to suggest passengers should attack hi-jackers or cooperate based on where the hi-jackers CLAIM they want to go?! :duh:

'Uhm.....PASSENGERS......please do not resist, we are only wanting to hi-jack you to Cuba.....yeah, that's the ticket.'

You seem to view the world through the eyes of someone who always has a firearm on his person. Good for you, but will my 14 year old daughter, now studying JKD/FMA and BJJ, be able to get a CCW permit? I've worked at DOD/DOE jobs where bringing a gun in would've gotten me arrested then fired. At one location I couldn't even have left it in the car (and they had very little sense of humour about things like this). It's not always an option.

No, i'm telling you what i'm going to do.....feel free to do whatever you like, but lets not pretend your way is superior in any measurable way.

I'd suggest your daughter run from an armed assailant......cooperation should be her LAST RESORT!

I doubt that further discussion could be fruitful.

Your decision, it doesn't matter to me.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Which reminds me......why do all these shootings happen in 'Gun Free Zones'?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I doubt that further discussion could be fruitful.

Upon further reflection, it compels me to admit that in these types of discussions I can come off as a bit abrasive.....and while I fully believe every word I say on the subject matter, I should make it clear that my disagreement is actually more respectful than it might sound.

Reasonable and intelligent people DO hold conflicting opinions. So we can simply agree to respectfully disagree.