Theresa, Sam article is based on the premise that a violent act against you while unlikely to ever happen may occur once, and so running is the best option.
You seem to have a position where a violent act is likely to occur rather frequently.
Of course in a situation where violent acts are going to occur at a high probability you will need to completely modify your game theory. No one would take his stance on violence as a way to wage war for example.
If you live in a neighbour hood where alot of people get stolen from at gun-point but never murdered, then you could indeed say that these people are actually murderers. And if you weigh up the chance of you dieing against the losses to you by losing your wallet and future implied loses by letting the criminal continue, then maybe it might be the right more to fight back. But I think that that situation would be an incredible long shot.
In the western world, where even if you are broke you are not likly to starve to death because of our social systems, not amount of money, even 100% implied losses, are worth your life.