[webstersII]

“Even most armed assailants, he explained, aren’t hell-bent upon murder. They use weapons to control their victims. “

A couple of points:
- I seriously doubt any good firearms instructor, not to mention combat veteran, would have said any such thing.

- Relying on the beneficence of a predator with a weapon is the stupidest thing one could ever do.

- Once someone pulls out a weapon in the commission of a predatory act they have given up the right to complain about overly harsh treatment.

[Abathar]

I agree completely with your statement, but I think what he is saying is if there was 100k attacks in a year with a weapon but the weapon was only used 10k times during the acts then you stand a better chance of not forcing them to use it by threatening their life in retaliation with a gun.

Logically I can see his point if 50% of the people who do resist with a weapon are killed, he is simply playing the odds, in which case the criminals will win hands down every time but I would still not use his way of thinking myself.

[allmendream]

“They use weapons to control their victims. “

When someone you wouldn’t want to surrender to pulls a gun in a violent confrontation, you should immediately run towards or away from the Gun.

Once you start to comply with the gunman it becomes increasingly harder to break out of your compliance mindset.

A guy with a .22 got a bunch of people and had them line up and wait for their bullet to the back of the head. A .22 anywhere else would hurt, but most likely wouldn’t kill. So sitting and waiting for their execution is about the dumbest thing they could have done, and yet none of them could break out of the mindset of compliance with the gunman’s demands.