Goshin did a great job of addressing all your points already, but I'll chime in just so you don't think I've lost interest.
Yes. Period.Wait wait... so you're saying if an assailant has a gun and you know his motives are to rob your store, you should always shoot to kill?
I don’t sympathize with a lot of people, that doesn’t mean I wish them dead. You’re not paying attention. The store owner firing the first shot is NOT escalation, it’s self-defense and common sense.Saying you don't sympathize with robbers is not that different from saying they had it coming, especially if you haven't even waited to hear the results on who fired the first shot. If the store owner fired first then it he was he who escalated the danger of the situation, not the robbers.
I’m surprised you’re drawing conclusions about offering passive acquiescence without doing your homework… Your facts are off. I’ll elaborate when addressing the next quote.I am surprised you are drawing conclusions without appropriate evidence.
Statistics show you are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:Your question is a loaded one. It really depends on the situation, but if the person with the gun has specific demands, then they are only using the gun to enforce those demands, and not to kill you. The threat of death is just a device to get you to comply. Robberies almost always go down that way.
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
Still want to just stand there while you’re getting a gun pointed at you?
If someone is already holding a gun, you have no guarantee of surviving, no matter what you do. To quote you: “That's a really quaint and convenient way of looking at it when you aren't in a situation where tensions are high and adrenaline is flowing.”If someone comes up to me on the street with a gun and demands my wallet, I give them my damn wallet and let them be on their merry way. My response would not be to draw a firearm and shoot at them, potentially committing murder OR getting myself shot back at in the process. You may feel righteous about it, like you have a right to punish them, but that is simply foolish. Your wallet is meaningless compared to your life.
Again, the robbers created the situation. The owner was simply reacting appropriately to a dangerous situation.When it comes to that kind of situation, there are no real guarantees. But if the owner fired first, then he's the one who made the situation more dangerous, not the robbers, and he is to blame for his own injuries as well as the deaths of others.
It does not mean that they are NOT going to shoot you if you comply either. See the above statistic I quoted.And AGAIN, I'm saying, that just because someone is holding you at gunpoint does not mean they are necessarily going to shoot you. In fact, complying with their demands will probably lead to you surviving the situation. Your advice of shooting automatically is completely stupid. That just puts you and bystanders at risk.
See the above statistic.Any police officer with training will tell any member of the public that if someone pulls a gun on them and demands money, to just give over the money and not fight back. You may be trained in how to use a gun but that doesn't mean you are trained in diffusing hostile situations, and just because you have the ability to fire the gun first does not mean you will get out of it alive.
Thank you for your opinion.That is just arrogant and stupid.