Temple Student Fights Back

[mikeb302000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAw4fPIRGr8&feature=player_embedded">video link

This is what the gun-rights folks are fighting so hard for. They want to convince people that the best response to the possibility of gun violence is http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-cant-we-all-just-get-along.html">to own and carry a gun of your own.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/04/concealed-carry-killers.html">The gun control argument is that more guns just increase the violence.

Case in point: today's story about Rob Eells. He was shot by a robber for refusing to give up his money, fought back and both he and the robber ended up in the hospital in critical condition.

In many people's eyes that makes him a hero, but is that really the case? Is he a hero? Or is he part of the problem of ever-increasing gun violence?

One way to look at it is this. Forgetting about who was right and who was wrong for a moment, we've got two people, both with guns, both ended up seriously wounded. If only the robber had had a gun, one of two things would have happened. Eells would have given up his money and no one would have been hurt, or Eells would have resisted and only he would have been shot. Remember we're forgetting about right and wrong for a minute - that would have been one wounded instead of two. That's always better.

Now let's bring right and wrong back into it. A 15-year-old, dangerous beyond his years, attempts to rob someone. Does he deserve death for that? Even if he's pointing a gun at someone, responding with superior firepower, eliminating the threat by killing a young human being, is excessive.

I realize it's anathema to the gun-rights, stand-up-for-yourself macho crowd, but the best thing is to give the thief your money. Even if you have a gun of your own, give him your money and let him go on his way.

A big part of the problem is the self-defense guys hate robbers and criminals and consider them less-than-human. It's easy to preach excessive response when you consider it like squashing a bug. But the right thing is to remember we're not dealing with scumbags, or goblins or any of the other names they use. We're dealing with human beings and as such lethal response has to be the last possible answer.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[bluestateguy]

1. You leave out one scenario

The victim has no gun, gets robbed by a thug with a gun, does not resist and gives up his money. Then the thug shoots the victim anyway.

Would you have someone thrown in jail for defending himself with a gun if his life was threatened? That's about as dumb as these stupid zero tolerance policies in public schools, where they suspend everybody for fighting, even if it was a kid who was violently attacked by bullies and simply tried to defend himself.

[mikeb302000]

3. what if - what if - what if

that's a silly game.

[gejohnston]

4. your post

is a game of what if and I assume.

[MyrnaLoy]

6. wrong

what the OP described and the victims actions got him shot. No what it's there, he was shot.

[rrneck]

8. The OP is the same silly game. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Which is exactly what most of the threads you start are based upon

[S_B_Jackson]

35. A scenario, however, that has been played out time after time after time

With tragic results. And yet your preferred option is to have the victim quietly acquiece and then hold out hope that their attacker, who has demonstrated a disregard for the humanity of their victim, will suddenly discover their humanity?

That's some mighty strong chronic you're smokin'.

[ileus]

24. that's called taking the polite moral high gound, chance you gotta take.

dying to show how much you don't believe in violence is trendy...

[gejohnston]

2. another redundant post

Recover from the suppressor lashing?

Now let's bring right and wrong back into it. A 15-year-old, dangerous beyond his years, attempts to rob someone. Does he deserve death for that? Even if he's pointing a gun at someone, responding with superior firepower, eliminating the threat by killing a young human being, is excessive

Does Eells deserve death for resisting? You seem to have more problems with Eells than the asshole that shot him for saying no. How is not resisting make a more civilized society? I think that makes for a more predatory society. Street thugs are no different than Wall Street banksters. The only difference is one lobbies congress to pass "tort reform" and wears a suit. Your views encourage predatory and anti social behavior. Eells shot back only after being shot. No that is not excessive. It is called saving your life.

I realize it's anathema to the gun-rights, stand-up-for-yourself macho crowd, but the best thing is to give the thief your money. Even if you have a gun of your own, give him your money and let him go on his way.

No, what is an anathema is someone telling me or anyone else that I should be allow myself be robbed or worse just to fit their definition of "civilized." Many of these "civilized" people carry guns themselves or hire people to carry guns for them. The truth is the kid is a fucking asshole sociopath that saw a nerdy looking guy and assumed he was an easy mark. Given that Eells was out numbered, he may have been stabbed or beaten to death anyway. There is no guaranteeing that they will take the money and run.

A big part of the problem is the self-defense guys hate robbers and criminals and consider them less-than-human. It's easy to preach excessive response when you consider it like squashing a bug. But the right thing is to remember we're not dealing with scumbags, or goblins or any of the other names they use. We're dealing with human beings and as such lethal response has to be the last possible answer.

Hate has nothing to do with it. It is called saving your life. This is even more inflammatory, insulting, absurd, dishonest, and just plain despicable than most of your nonsense.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Another poster coined the phrase "criminal safety advocates". After reading the profane and moronic posts attacking Mr. Eells looks and Facebook page, while not addressing his attackers, the term fits.
http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/System_Justification_Theory

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x459674

Here is a question I have, how do you feel about private armed security guards, like armored car drivers for banks? Like what Mr. Heller asked the SCOTUS, why is it OK for someone to carry a gun and used deadly force to protect stuff belonging to multi national corporations, but immoral for someone to defend their stuff or lives the same way? The words hypocritical among other things come to mind.

[mikeb302000]

5. what are you saying gej?

that you never heard derogatory ways of describing criminals? Or that you yourself don't do that? Or that it has nothing to do with it?

Was that really "more inflammatory, insulting, absurd, dishonest, and just plain despicable than most of your nonsense."

Sounds like you're getting carried away with yourself there.

[gejohnston]

17. and the same derogatory ways of

describing law abiding gun owners? Most of the stuff I read by antis might be about saving lives on the surface, but most of it is hate towards the law abiding gun owner or anyone who resists criminal aggression. The other thread on this subject brought out several examples of that directed towards Mr. Eells. Your paragraph is no different. Hatred is different than "no, I will not let you rob, rape, or kill me" If you can't figure that out......
Give me a reason why I should like fucking asshole sociopaths?

Edit to add
While your silencer post was your most absurd,this one is the most despicable.

[mikeb302000]

42. that bullshit feigned indignation

keep spinnin' it, gej.

[gejohnston]

49. spinning what?

you have used the terms, the few accepted posters on your blog use the terms.

[iverglas]

54. "Give me a reason why I should like fucking asshole sociopaths?"

I'd be happy to try ... IF you can give me a reason why you are asking that bullshit question.

Deal?

[Union Scribe]

7. Friggin' awesome post. nt

[iverglas]

41. what the hell, a tangent

Here is a question I have, how do you feel about private armed security guards, like armored car drivers for banks? Like what Mr. Heller asked the SCOTUS, why is it OK for someone to carry a gun and used deadly force to protect stuff belonging to multi national corporations, but immoral for someone to defend their stuff or lives the same way? The words hypocritical among other things come to mind.

Armoured car drivers are not carrying firearms to protect "stuff", they carry firearms to protect themselves.

The nature of their work makes them gigantic targets for people who want the stuff they are transporting. (And by the way, if they didn't transport that stuff, exactly how would you get the cash out of the bank machines that you need to buy your own stuff?)

This is apparent in the Canadian regulations governing the situation:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-207/latest/sor-98-207.html

3. For the purpose of section 20 of the <Firearms> Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where

(a) the individual’s principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;

(b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or

(c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.

There really are people whose occupations make them targets and expose them to a very significantly higher risk of deadly violence than the general public. Where they are performing services in which the public has an interest, it is appropriate for them to be treated as exceptions. Armoured car drivers are one example. Dianne Feinstein was another at one time.

If the US Supreme Court actually bought some line along the lines of what you have said, shame on it.


typo fixed

[rrneck]

9. If things had been different

they would have been different.

Do you have to use existing threads here for material? You know about Google, right?

[TPaine7]

11. You should read your posts and think them through before hitting that "Post message" button. Really.

Forgetting about who was right and who was wrong for a moment...

Yes, if we ignore right and wrong, gun control fanaticism almost sounds reasonable.

If only the robber had had a gun, one of two things would have happened. Eells would have given up his money and no one would have been hurt, or Eells would have resisted and only he would have been shot.

You are either

1. A psychic
   
2. A prophet
   
3. God
   
4. A dishonest hack who underestimates our intelligence
   

So which is it? Should we hold you in awe, seek your righteous counsel, worship you or point and laugh? Inquiring minds...

Remember we're forgetting about right and wrong for a minute - that would have been one wounded instead of two. That's always better.

Really? So if a thug shoots an innocent person and escapes without a scratch to shoot and kill dozens more, that is preferable to that thug also being shot, going to the hospital, and being convicted of armed robbery? That's what your "always" means.

No doubt you feel strongly about gun control. No doubt you want to persuade others to share your views. But your arguments would be more effective if they actually made sense. And if they didn't require forgetting that silly "right and wrong" morality stuff.

[ileus]

12. You've got two people one legally using his SD firearm, the other a useless scumbag bum.

[jmg257]

13. My opinion is, unfortunately sometimes a lethal response is the only possible answer

If you want to survive a imminently deadly encounter. If or when that time comes, it is a great thing to be able to respond correctly.

That is THE issue you don't want to understand, and is what most self-defense guys know carrying a gun is all about, and why many find it so important. As is keeping the right to make that choice secure.

[mikeb302000]

43. I have no problem with that

What I say is the chances of your being assaulted at gun point are very low and the chances of your using the concealed carry piece to save the day are practically nil.

Keep deluding yourselves that it different. As Marlo said, "You want it to be one way, but it's the other way."

Think about this. A guy with a gun gets the drop on you. What do you do, try some Jack Bauer bullshit? No, you submit and hope he doesn't kill you. You do that whether you have a gun or not, it's the only smart move.

You guys have to get your egos out of the way and face reality.

[jmg257]

46. You have to know who you are talking to and their actual thoughts

on things you really have no idea of, like whether they are delusional about their abilities & what those abilities might be, whether they are quite aware of the limitations of themselves and guns, and/or whether they would really let their egos or some 'my gun will save the day' fantasies interfere in making a life and death decision.

Until that time, you are unfortunately coming off as a an insulting & pompous ass with little to no credibility. 'What you say' might even have a chance of making sense once in a while, but then any proper points get immediately buried in the narrow-minded uninformed opinionated & usually hateful bullshit that surely follows; what I say is also due to your often ill-placed contempt of those you don't agree with.

Please stop being so righteous, and engage in meaningful discussion, maybe we all might learn something.

[X_Digger]

14. "ever-increasing gun violence"?!?

In case this is an honest mistake.. 'gun violence' along with all crime.. is down. Quite sharply, in fact.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2010

Even if he's pointing a gun at someone, responding with superior firepower, eliminating the threat by killing a young human being, is excessive.

Using lethal force in response to a credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm is 'excessive'? You have a lot of state laws to change, then. Death of the perpetrator may be an outcome to such usage, but it's legally and morally justifiable.

[gravity556]

15. Pro-criminal safety is a better description for you than anti-gun

And there's already a thread on this topic, full of people blaming the victim and stopping just short of praising the 15 year old thug. Hopefully, the investigation finds out who provided said thug with a firearm so that they can be charged and imprisoned as well. The parents of this criminal scum should also be looking at charges for failing to keep their dangerous offspring on their property and under their supervision instead of out robbing people in the middle of the night.

What kind of foolish statement is "let's forget right and wrong here for a minute"? Particularly since the criminal acts committed by the 15 year old scumbag criminal (attempted robbery, attempted murder) are wrong by ANY society's standards. The VICTIM of the crime (you know, the citizen who did nothing illegal, though the pro-criminal safety crowd such as yourself insist that refusing to comply with the demands of a criminal are somehow "wrong") was lucky that he was able to draw a weapon and return fire. Otherwise the piece of shit criminal (by piece of shit I mean having no value to society-let's face it, this kid was never going to cure cancer or the common cold) would likely have killed the victim outright. And then the pro-criminal safety crowd would point to the dead victim and scream for more laws-which piece of shit criminals don't obey anyhow.

The true tragedy in this is that the victim will now be in pain for quite a while and will likely suffer psychologically for years. All because some spoiled little shit with an overgrown sense of entitlement threw a tantrum because someone decided that they weren't going to give the piece of shit what he wanted. If you think the reason is anything more than that, you're a fool. The assailant exhibited all the self control of a toddler who demands a toy at the store and is rebuffed. Pity that the victim was unable to land a fatal hit-likely would have saved several people from being victimized in the future.

[DanTex]

19. Keep those talking points coming...

"pro-criminal safety" "blaming the victim" "praising the thug"

I'm sure this kind of rhetoric is popular inside the NRA bubble. But in the real world, this is the same "you're either with us or with the terrorists"-style moral obtuseness that is most commonly found in far-right-wingers with no tolerance for nuance or ambiguity.

Of course, it's only in your mind is anyone denying that the 15-year-old was committing a crime. That much is obvious. But what you don't seem to get is that the victim also made a mistake here. This is also pretty obvious, based entirely on the well-being of the victim -- losing some cash is a much better outcome then getting shot, period.

This incident causes you to be angry at the criminal, and this is justified, after all, he is the one who committed a violent crime. But your rhetoric suggests that your anger has just as much to do with resentment at having your monochromatic good-guys/bad-guys worldview challenged. Otherwise, why go to such lengths to dehumanize the criminal? Why claim that he's a "spoiled piece of shit", given that, far from being spoiled, he most likely had a severally disadvantaged and rough childhood. And it's true that he is unlikely to cure cancer: unfortunately, children who grow up in low-income inner-city neighborhoods, often minorities, are far underrepresented in ranks of elite scientists.

Yes, it's much easier to pretend that there is no moral ambiguity in the world. Bad guys are totally worthless to society, so killing them doesn't pose any moral problems. And good guys are totally innocent, and the very idea that a good guy might make a poor decision, even worse, a morally questionable decision, amounts to victim-blaming.

Sorry, it's not that simple.

[gejohnston]

22. read some of the posts on your side

there are multiple examples of blaming the victim, not to mention childish personal attacks at Mr. Eells.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x459674

Based on those, pro criminal safety is kind of accurate.

Sorry, growing up poor does not an excuse. Sociopaths are born, not made. If he were in a gated community, he probably would grow up to be a bankster and steal millions with a key board and vote Republican. I know a lot of people who grew up in rough and disadvantaged childhoods. Self included. When I was his age I used a handgun to hunt small game to stretch my mom's meager pay and food stamps, not to steal from others. Granted he can't do that in a city. I still had a library card. In that way, he is more advantaged than I was.

Dehumanizing works both ways. The robber saw a nerdy looking easy mark,not a human being. That is what made it so easy for him to shoot for simply being told no. Like any other sociopath, he dehumanizes everyone equally.

edited to add link to original thread.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. Sometimes standing up to wrong is worth the risk.

Of course, it's only in your mind is anyone denying that the 15-year-old was committing a crime. That much is obvious. But what you don't seem to get is that the victim also made a mistake here. This is also pretty obvious, based entirely on the well-being of the victim -- losing some cash is a much better outcome then getting shot, period.

For some people.

For others, standing up to a criminal is not just about the physical property being stolen. It's about right and wrong. It's about standing up to violent thugs. It's about taking a stand against wrong. I don't expect everyone to be able to do that. For some, running away of submitting is the best they can hope to do. But for those few who can and do stand up to violent thugs, they should have nothing but admiration and respect. Not everyone who takes a stand against violence is going to come away unscathed. But even then, sometimes doing what is right in the face of danger is still right.

[gravity556]

28. Oh boo hoo, the poor little armed robber

Bullshit. Excusing someone for antisocial acts because they live in a crappy neighborhood is idiocy in high form. While I didn't grow up in the ghetto, I didn't grow up in luxury, either. My wife, who DID grow up in a scary neighborhood, dirt poor didn't grow up to be a thug. The whole "oh, that poor disadvantaged individual! he only has an xbox 360 and a 42 inch HDTV. no wonder he turned to violence and crime" attitude is spouted by people who think so little of the poor that they presume that crime is the only path available. And for the folks who are in the shitty nweighborhood who listen to and believe that line of horse shit presumably become criminals.

This shitbag criminal CHOSE, of his own free will, to demand money from the victim. He chose, again, by his own volition, to pull out his (illegally obtained and illegally carried, 2 other CRIMINAL acts) gun and open fire on an (at that moment) unarmed VICTIM when the VICTIM (who was doing NOTHING illegal) refused to give the criminal money. Seems to me that the individual who chose to break multiple laws is wholly and unquestionably at fault. Maybe his parents should shoulder some of the legal responsibility as well, after all, if your dog bites me, you are the responsible party. Granted, a dog is only an animal, incapable of criminal intent, but a 15 year old is certainly old enough to know right from wrong.

Also, the little criminal shitstain's friends should be charged with the robbery as well. It's a pity that the victim was injured, but at least he ensured that at least 1 dangerous criminal won't be carousing and committing crimes for a while.

[DanTex]

33. You still don't get it. Nobody is excusing anything.

You just yearn for a world where there is no middle ground between "excusing" the actions of a criminal and thinking he deserves to die. And where it's impossible for the victim to have exercised poor judgement even though the criminal responsibility rests with the criminal. But it doesn't work that way. The world is full of ambiguity.

[gravity556]

36. Ambiguity?

Really? The concept of "don't take stuff that's not yours" is so simple, so unambiguous that we, as a society, tend to teach it to kids about the same time they learn to talk. As for "thinking he deserves to die", what do you propose to do with an individual willing to kill over being denied access to someone else's stuff? Smack his hand and tell him not to do that anymore? Ask him nicely to stop being a thug? Stick him in jail for a few years so he can learn better ways to be a criminal? And when he actually succeeds in killing someone, what then? You shrug your shoulders and say "oh well. the victim shouldn't have said no".

Your position seems to be "Well, scum does what scum does and only a fool tries to stop him". Utter foolishness. The victim did what was right and got shot for it. I have nothing but sympathy for him, nothing but contempt for the individual who CHOSE to rob someone. I also have no sympathy for drunk drivers who injure or kill people. They CHOSE to engage in illegal activity, often hurting INNOCENT people. Should I be sympathetic for them? After all, it's possible that their parents were drunks as well.

As for my use of invective in reference to said piece of shit criminals, I would say equating them to feces is rather accurate-their worth to society is equivalent.

[mikeb302000]

44. I'm not blaming the victim

I'm just sayin' he should have given up the money.

[gejohnston]

47. and make it worse in the long term

not standing up to predators or any injustice makes a less civilized society.

[spin]

16. While I see your point, let me point out ...

that sometimes a mugger or robber does shoot their victims even if they cooperate.

Many years ago I took a jujitsu course. The instructor told the class that we were only to use the skills he taught when it was absolutely necessary.

When he discussed what to do if mugged on the street he said, "Look into the eyes of your attacker as they mirror the soul. If you believe that your attacker is sane and sober and merely wants your money, just give it to him. You can always replace your money, your credit cards and your driver's license. You can't always replace your health or your life. However if you believe that your attacker will hurt you no matter what you do, than use the techniques I teach. In such a situation you have nothing to lose."

The same advise would apply to a person who carries a firearm.

It's easy for you to play Monday morning quarterback and criticize the actions of the person with the carry permit. Before I would consider your view valid, I would want be at least a witness to the incident.

You ask "A 15-year-old, dangerous beyond his years, attempts to rob someone. Does he deserve death for that? Even if he's pointing a gun at someone, responding with superior firepower, eliminating the threat by killing a young human being, is excessive."

A fifteen year old can be extremely dangerous and can kill you just as fast an older person. Is it wrong for an older person use legal self defense against a fifteen year old. Should you politely ask him just how old he is? Maybe you can look at a person and know that they are fifteen but I know fifteen year old boys who look twenty one and twenty one year old men that look fifteen.

[DanTex]

21. In most cases, though...

...the mugger wants your money and then he wants to get away. Criminals have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from shooting someone. And most criminals, like anyone else, tend to act in their own self-interest.

I can believe that you personally who would exercise due restraint and simply hand over the cash in an ordinary mugging. Of course, it's difficult to know how you or anyone would respond in such a situation, it's a split-second decision made under a lot of stress. This is one reason why even carrying a gun can put you at greater risk, because it can induce you to make poor decisions in the heat of the moment.

True, it's hard to second-guess, but it is very likely that if this victim hadn't resisted, he would have lost his wallet, nothing more. After all, I can't imagine he's the only Temple student who got mugged in that neighborhood, but the other mugging victims simply turned over the cash and avoided injury. And if this victim didn't have a gun on him, he likely wouldn't have resisted. In fact, as a sidenote, as I understand, there were actually 3 criminals and 2 victims in this incident. Only two people pulled guns, and the same two guys ended up in the hospital. The non-CC victim didn't get shot.

Of course, that's just one datapoint. In the other thread I linked to a controlled scientific study that took place in the same city of Philly, which found that, indeed, carrying a gun was associated with an elevated risk of being shot. And, as I'm sure you're aware, there have been other studies with similar findings. And some of the reasons for this are that carrying a gun gives people a false sense of security, encouraging people to take risks they shouldn't, and choosing resistance when handing over the cash is the more prudent choice. In theory, people can safely carry guns and only pull them in the extremely rare situations where it makes things better. In practice, people pull guns in all sorts of inappropriate situations, and put themselves and others at greater risk.

Not to mention that, as much as some people on this board would deny it, the gun culture most definitely does glorify armed self-defense. Contrast your sober response to others on here and in the other thread expressing outrage that anyone would challenge the decision to shoot a worthless criminal thug, etc. In the other thread it was even suggested that allowing criminals to get what they want is some kind of moral failing. All this on what is probably one of the mildest gun boards on the web.

[gejohnston]

23. In this case,

Eells did not draw his gun until he was already shot. Sorry, anyone who kills after being told no is likely to kill for the hell of it. At that point, Eells did the only possible thing to keep from being finished off and his friend being a silenced witness.
What unnecessary risk did Mr. Eells take? Standing in front of his house minding his own business?

[DanTex]

27. The exact sequence of events is not clear.

I would guess that Eells actually drew his gun before he was shot, but it's impossible to say for sure. What is clear, though, is that Eells got mugged, and refused to hand over his money, and then got shot. I would be surprised if Eells was the only Temple student who has been mugged in that neighborhood. The difference here is that Eells resisted, and then he ended up getting shot.

In fact, even in this incident, there were two victims. Only one of them had a gun, the same one who ended up in the hospital.

Also, for someone who claims to know something about criminology, it's a bit sad to watch you resort to the old criminals "kill just for the hell of it" argument in a desperate attempt to salvage your pro-gunner worldview. As I'm sure you know, criminals tend to act in their own self-interest, which means that muggers by and large want your cash and then they want to get away safely without bringing any more attention to the incident.

[gejohnston]

30. Because he was the only one who said no

I did not say all criminals kill for the hell of it. You are correct about the typical addict who rolls people or rips off gas stations. If my understanding of the timeline is correct, then the kid is not a typical robber and is a fucking asshole sociopath. They do exist. Some do kill for the hell of it.
There is no desperate attempt to salvage anything. If anyone is desperate, it is your side.
This is a redundant thread, read through the original one.

[gravity556]

39. What do you know, seems sometimes criminals kill even if you submit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x460331

Store clerk Surendra Dangol followed the demands of the gun-toting robber and quickly filled the suspect’s backpack with cash from the register. But despite his having offered no resistance and keeping his hands up high, Edward Corliss, a Hyde Park newlywed desperate for cash, shot him dead, prosecutors said.

Seems sometimes criminals kill "just for the hell of it".

[rl6214]

31. So answer this question:

Is it ok for a bank, credit union, grocery store to hire an armored car service to carry their money?

If so why isn't it ok for the average citizen to be armed to carry their money?

Is it the amount of money carried? If so, what is that amount? What should be the limit the average person should carry before they should be allowed to arm themselves?

[spin]

32. Most of the people that I know who have carry permits and are regular shooters ...

feel as I do.

But to be fair, the people that I know who have carry permits show up at the range frequently to practice. Many have military or police experience. They are not mall ninjas and they have absolutely no wish to ever have to use their concealed weapon. The concealed weapons classes emphasize that using a firearm for self defense is a very serious business and even in a state like Florida, which has castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, there will be plenty of questions asked if you do use your weapon.

Did your studies indicate that legally carrying a gun increased your chances of being shot? Obviously if you are a criminal or a drug dealer, you may carry a firearm and indeed because of your chosen occupation, you do stand a higher risk of being shot.

I know a good number of people with carry permits and none has been shot or ever shot another person with his legally concealed weapon.I do know one who drew his weapon to stop a robbery by a man armed with a knife and one who when approached by a man with a knife pulled his jacket back to reveal that he had a .45 automatic in a shoulder holster. Both incidents ended with no shots fired and no one injured.

[TPaine7]

38. "Criminals have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from shooting someone. "

I wish the world was actually as you see it.

Criminals act in their own self interest as they perceive those interests, not as you or I perceive them. Their premises and values do not always coincide with the values of law-abiding society. What you consider a loss, they may consider a gain. And there are many things they consider gain that you or I would not.

Shooting or killing someone in a robbery may gain a criminal:

1) entrance into a gang (murder or other crimes are often initiations)
2) street cred--a reputation that will save him lots of trouble on the street
3) personal satisfaction and pleasure--it may be hard for you to believe, but many people get pleasure out of hurting and killing people and animals
4) imprisonment with fellow criminals which offers criminal and legitimate educational opportunities, credibility, free food, free health care, and possibly a safer environment than the streets


On the other hand, there are potential losses associated with not shooting:

1) a reputation for being weak (especially if the victim appears to be insufficiently intimidated or actually resists). Remember he was with a group of fellow criminals.
2) failure to get the money if the victim resists
3) a relatively boring experience

The gains and losses that you see are supremely irrelevant (and may often be diametrically opposed) to those a criminal sees.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. Compliant victims do get shot.

the mugger wants your money and then he wants to get away. Criminals have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from shooting someone. And most criminals, like anyone else, tend to act in their own self-interest.

Then why do compliant victims sometimes get shot? There was another UNARMED Temple student who was shot after being robbed of his iPhone. At age 15 the mugger may well have been trying to establish street cred as a certified bad-ass.

[mikeb302000]

45. my point was not that he was just a poor teen.

My point was to acknowledge that he was dangerous BEYOND his years.

I like you're jujutsu teacher's advice. You'd have to make a judgment call in any situation like that.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. what if - what if - what if

that's a silly game.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. It is ALWAYS right to stand up to injustice!

This is what the gun-rights folks are fighting so hard for. They want to convince people that the best response to the possibility of gun violence is to own and carry a gun of your own.

When you are confronted with violence, you have three options: Run, submit, or fight back. Every person and every situation is unique, and I won't hold it against anyone who decides that their best option when confronted with violence is to run or submit. But I will always root for the person who chooses to stand their ground and fight against wrong.

Case in point: today's story about Rob Eells. He was shot by a robber for refusing to give up his money, fought back and both he and the robber ended up in the hospital in critical condition.

In many people's eyes that makes him a hero, but is that really the case? Is he a hero? Or is he part of the problem of ever-increasing gun violence?

The fact that anyone would even question whether Rob Eells is a hero is an atrocity. The fact that he did not escape unscathed from standing up to an armed criminal does not negate the fact that he took a highly heroic action - instead of running away, or submitting, Rob Eells took a stand against injustice. Yes, it cost him. Doing the right thing often does.

Anyone who stands up to injustice, especially at great personal risk to themselves, is a hero.

You should be ashamed for even questioning this.

One way to look at it is this. Forgetting about who was right and who was wrong for a moment,

No, let's not forget about who was right and who was wrong. Not ever.

Because in this case, like in every case where a criminal is victimizing someone innocent, someone is in the right, and someone is in the wrong. Forgetting this is saying that both people are on morally equal ground. And that is just bullshit.

we've got two people, both with guns, both ended up seriously wounded. If only the robber had had a gun, one of two things would have happened. Eells would have given up his money and no one would have been hurt, or Eells would have resisted and only he would have been shot. Remember we're forgetting about right and wrong for a minute - that would have been one wounded instead of two. That's always better.

Says who? Why is it always better to run away or submit in the face of injustice? Why is it always better to never fight back and risk getting hurt? That's just bullshit. The fact of the matter is, it is always right to stand up to injustice, even violence, even if it means you might get hurt.. I don't expect everyone to have it in them to do it, but for those few who do, they are champions.

Now let's bring right and wrong back into it. A 15-year-old, dangerous beyond his years, attempts to rob someone. Does he deserve death for that? Even if he's pointing a gun at someone, responding with superior firepower, eliminating the threat by killing a young human being, is excessive.

Absolute, complete bullshit. This 15-year-old, "dangerous beyond his years", has decided for himself that the life of his victim was worth whatever wealth he was carrying on him. Does anyone worry about this being "excessive"? In addition, this 15-year-old has decided, knowingly or not, to risk his own life by committing armed robbery. Everyone should realize that the possibility of deadly resistance is a possibility when you undertake a crime.

I realize it's anathema to the gun-rights, stand-up-for-yourself macho crowd, but the best thing is to give the thief your money. Even if you have a gun of your own, give him your money and let him go on his way.

It should be an anathema to all freedom-loving people. It's not about being macho. It's about standing up for what you believe in. Standing up for what is right. Standing up even in the face of danger, at the risk of grave personal loss, even death. These are actions to be commended. Not everyone will have it in them to do this, and that is fine. In the end, it is about survival, and I won't fault anyone for taking whatever action seems best to them to survive.

But I will always cheer on the man who goes beyond mere survival and takes a stand against injustice.

A big part of the problem is the self-defense guys hate robbers and criminals and consider them less-than-human. It's easy to preach excessive response when you consider it like squashing a bug. But the right thing is to remember we're not dealing with scumbags, or goblins or any of the other names they use. We're dealing with human beings and as such lethal response has to be the last possible answer.

Sorry, but a person who has decided that my life is worth the contents of my wallet is about at worthless as a bug. Just because they are human does not change the fact that they have decided to kill for petty profit. And for those who would say that simply being armed in the commission of a robbery does not mean that they would kill, I say bullshit. If you rob with a weapon the obvious implication is that if you don't give up the property they will use the weapon on you.

I am constantly annoyed by this contradiction. Everyone is down on the man who values his property more than the life of the criminal, but no one is down on the criminal for valuing the victim's life at the value of the property.

Bullshit. If you are willing to kill me to take my property, I'm willing to kill you to keep it.

[rl6214]

29. Totally ridiculous arguement:

"Forgetting about who was right and who was wrong for a moment,"

Forget about who was right and who was wrong? Are you kidding? It's all about who was right and who was wrong, if not you're saying just give into the criminal, give up your rights of self defense, submit to the robber or the rapist.

"If only the robber had had a gun, one of two things would have happened. Eells would have given up his money and no one would have been hurt"

That's right, just give up your money, your hard earned possecions, your body, just submit to the rapist because he won't hurt you after you have submitted because the criminal ALWAYS just goes away after they have committed their crimes.

"Remember we're forgetting about right and wrong for a minute - that would have been one wounded instead of two. " WTF?

How can you possibly imagine this? The criminal is going to just shoot and injure the victim?

"A big part of the problem is the self-defense guys hate robbers and criminals and consider them less-than-human"

Unrec for the shear idiocy of this post.

Also don't click on the blind links, they just go to his blog, as usual.

Where the hell did you pull this from? You've got something you can cite to prove this?

[S_B_Jackson]

34. Why leave aside who was right and who was wrong?

The thief believed that he was - for some reason - entitled to something that was not his and that he could use the threat of lethal force to obtain it. The target of his criminal actions believed, correctly, that the thief was NOT entitled to that which was not his and that as his life was threatened, and so he defended himself.

The correct thing in your mind is that everyone should brainlessly give that which is theirs to anyone who demands it????? Fuck that.

MR Eells was absolutely correct to do as he did.

[PavePusher]

37. Huh, I must have touched a nerve. Let me try again....

"Now let's bring right and wrong back into it. A 15-year-old, dangerous beyond his years, attempts to rob someone. Does he deserve death for that? Even if he's pointing a gun at someone, responding with superior firepower, eliminating the threat by killing a young human being, is excessive."

The intended robbery victim had already been shot when he drew his weapon and returned fire, very likely saving his own life and possibly the lives of his companions.

If you think the criminal would not have fired again, please cite your evidence that supports that belief. Otherwise you are implying that the victim intended murder, an assumption with no apparent evidence.

[iverglas]

40. sorry, Mike, there was already a thread about this

If you wanted to discuss this incident, you should have added your thoughts to that thread as the rest of us did, not started a duplicate.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

53. are you two really unaware

- despite all the discussion in this forum - that these allegations of blog-flogging are impermissible? Not to mention the persistent gratuitous references to an individual's place of residence. Shame. Just shame.

[Remmah2]

50. Criminals love gun free zones.

They're target rich environments.

[iverglas]

55. some people love meaningless memes

They are apparently thought to substitute for civil discourse.



(For anyone who is not a Doctor Who devotee, those are the Adherents of the Repeated Meme.
The scriptwriters must have spent time in this forum.)