In the line of fire: The impact of firearms on the outcome of a robbery Published in Nedbank ISS Crime Index Volume 4 2000 Number 1, January - February Using an analysis of police dockets, the ISS undertook research into how possessing a firearms during a criminal incident would affect the outcome. The impact of having a firearm on the outcome was startling. Indeed, it questions whether the possession of a firearm is a deterrent to crime at all. Common sense suggests that the outcome of a robbery would amongst others be affected by an infinite number of factors: the number of people, the number and type of weapons used, the type of crime, the motive for the crime, the level of premeditation prior to the crime, and so on. Many of these factors are difficult to quantify, which makes any quantitative analysis difficult. But when the number of victims and offenders involved in an incident and the number of weapons used in an incident are brought into consideration, the analysis makes the outcome more easy to quantify and less difficult to judge. Simplifying the sample There were 367 robbery dockets in the study. Of these, 211 were armed robberies, 77 were common robberies and 79 were hijackings. In order to analyse the information, each incident was categorised into scenarios outlining the main variants, as determined by the number of victims, offenders and weapons. Table 1 indicates the 14 scenario categories and the number of incidents within each. Case dockets were randomly selected from the police filing system. These dockets were coded and classified into scenarios. Table 1: Description of the robbery scenario What happens to an unarmed victim? The number of offenders and the number of firearms in the armed robbery affected the outcome of Scenario G, I and J. There was a direct relationship between the number of offenders and the number of firearms involved in the incident, and the chances of possessions being stolen. It was found that as the number of offenders and the number of firearms involved in a single armed robbery increased, so did the chances of the victim being robbed increase (Table 2). Table 2: Were possessions stolen from the victim during the armed robbery? Similarly, the severity of injury increased as the number of offenders involved in the armed robbery increased. The highest level of injury occurred when multiple offenders with multiple firearms confronted an unarmed victim (Table 3). Table 3: Did injury occur during the armed robbery? Armed robbery vs hijacking In order to make sense of the main scenarios outlined in Table 1, some of the categories have been regrouped into broader scenarios. Thus, scenarios G, I, J are combined to form one scenario, and scenarios A, D, E are combined to form another. This is a valid action based on the removal of the distinction between the number of offenders and the number of firearms in possession of the offenders. The previous section argues that both the number of offenders and the number of firearms involved in an armed robbery affect the chances of having one’s possessions stolen and the chances of injury — however not necessarily firearm injury. When comparing the chances of having possessions stolen, a single unarmed victim involved in an armed robbery (78.8%), as opposed to a hijacking (45.9%), had greater chances of having possessions stolen when confronted by one or more offenders with one or more firearms. Table 4: Were possessions stolen from the victim during the incident? * If there are less than 30 incidents, the findings are inconclusive. In the armed robberies 16.4% of the unarmed victims confronted by armed offenders were injured similar to the 18% who were injured in hijackings (Table 5). It would appear that a high level of injury occurred in those instances where there was an armed victim confronted by armed offenders. However, due to the few cases, this is difficult to verify. Table 5: Did injury occur during the robbery? The fate of an armed victim An unarmed victim is more likely to have possessions stolen than an armed victim. Outcomes of Scenario G, I, J, with Scenario A, D, E and Scenario B, C demonstrate this. It was found that in these robberies, an unarmed victim (65.6%) had more chance of having possessions stolen that an armed victim (34.1%) when confronted by one or more offenders with one or more firearms. It was found that even the armed victims when confronted by one or more offenders with no weapons had possessions stolen (12.5%). In a robbery, an unarmed victim (17%) has lower chances of being injured that an armed victim (34.1%) when confronted by one or more offenders with one or more firearms. Under these circumstances, slightly more firearm injury is experienced by the armed victim (2.4%) than by the unarmed victim (1.8%). Summing up the sample The possession of a firearm by a victim does not always favourably influence the outcome of a robbery for the victim. There are circumstances under which this may assist the victim in not having their possessions stolen, although this may be at the expense of an injury. An unarmed victim has a greater chance of having his or her possessions stolen during a robbery, while an armed victim has a greater chance of being injured, when confronted by one or more armed offenders. The deterrence value of a firearm during a robbery cannot be determined against other types of deterrent actions such as screaming, using a mace spray, running, turning on a light or utilising a siren, etc. Further research on the value of comparative alternative deterrent mechanisms is needed. The mere possession of a firearm is not necessarily a deterrent to a crime. Once a crime occurs and if the victim is armed, the chances of successful defence may slightly improve, but the chances of receiving bodily injury greatly increase. Clare Hansmann Institute for Security Studies This article is sponsored by the following funders: Royal Norwegian Government Royal Swedish Government Government of the Netherlands Government of Switzerland European Union