"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:32:38 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:


'Twas a serious thought and is followed by a serious question:-
If a victim is robbed/mugged at gunpoint and offers no resistance, what
are
the probabilities of getting shot/not getting shot?

We don't have the direct experience on this side of the pond to any great
extent, since even ownership of a hand gun can get you five years of free
accommodation at Her Majesties pleasure. Use of it in furtherance of a
crime
gets you a longer holiday away from society.

I can't authoritatively answer that other than that it is considerably
higher than zero. The risk is greatest if the assailant is already a
twice-busted felon because a third conviction could get him life as a
habitual criminal. Therefore, for him anyway, the assault or robbery
carries about the same penalty as homicide and killing any witnesses
may reduce his risk of being caught and convicted.


The data on this point is available. I don't recall it well enough for a
quote, but my recollection is that your chance of being shot if you put up
resistance (including resistance with a gun) is slightly *lower* than if you
put up no resistance.

That's a statistical conclusion and it would be worth investigating it
further. Nevertheless, it's suggestive of the efficacy of being armed in
self-defense.

FWIW, and to avoid confusing anyone who thinks I'm arguing the opposite,
this has nothing to do with the availability or propensity of criminals to
use a gun. That's a whole other kettle of fish, and the experience of the UK
and most continental European countries contrasts sharply with that of
countries where there are lots of guns available to nearly anyone who isn't
a criminal or insane -- such as the US. (Of course, guns are readily
available here to criminals and to the insane, as well.)

--
Ed Huntress