US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[JimC]

I am not going to argue that the student did the wrong thing in the context of the society he lives in, or that the would-be robber wasn't a dangerous little arsehole...

All I will say is that I am very glad to live in a society with a very low overall incidence of gun ownership and gun crime...

This.

If you are allowing concealed firearms and so on, your society has already gone off the rails and needs rebooting.

US society could definitely need some re-booting, no doubt. However, unfettered firearm ownership, concealed or otherwise, has been the norm for most of American history. It's only in the past handful of decades that gun control legislation has proliferated.

And I really don't head in the direction of being too critical; you guys must make your own decisions in this area, and I recognise the weight of history involved. However, my gladness in response to that particular aspect of our current society remains...

[Clinton Huxley]

The latter, FBM.

We Brits promise not to try to eat up all of your crawdad, so you can put the muskets down...

[FBM]

I gotcha, Jim. I also appreciate living in a society where I don't feel the need to go armed.

The latter, FBM.

We Brits promise not to try to eat up all of your crawdad, so you can put the muskets down...

Fair enough. Just keep yer mittens off the hush puppies, too.

[MrJonno]

Ah. Maybe you meant that if society has devolved to the point that citizens feel it necessary/wise to carry concealed weapons? Yeah, I'd agree with that.

I can understand that people may think there society is so dangerous that need to carry guns to feel safe, what I don't understand is why anyone would want to be proud of it.

To me if somewhere is that dangerous, you don't adapt to your environments you use your legs and move to a better environment

[borealis]

Guns don't kill people, mid-terms kill people.

Guns certainly don't seem to have killed anyone in this case.

Yep, and that's the most important thing. But if the attacker had been the only one armed, there victim would probably be laid out on a slab by now.

Or then neither of them would have been shot. When someone is pointing a gun at you, wants money and you are unarmed, usually normal person would just give the money and nobody gets hurt. Usually there is no point for attacker kill the cooperative victim, unless he/she tries something stupid (like trying to reach a gun or start a fight, run away etc). According to studies, people who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, even when confounding factors are taken in account.

I think the assumption that all a person need do is be polite and cooperative to avoid being hurt or killed is delusional and dangerously naive. An adult has the right to risk that and not be pro-active in his/her defense, but no one has the right to expect any other adult to assume that same risk.

Most people who own guns and carry guns will never be shot and never shoot anyone else.

Most people who get stabbed own knives.
So, owning knives increases the risk of being stabbed?

Of course everyone has a right to defend themselves when being attacked. And I never meant that all a person needs to do is bla bla bla.
All I did, I gave another option (with a reference to a study) to FBM's claim that if the attacker had been the only one armed, the victim would probably be dead. That is possible, but it is also possible that both of them walked away uninjured. I don't see you clearly disagreed with this option in your post?

I have already given up to have any deeper gun discussions with Americans, so I have no intentions to discuss about it further. The cultures and people are too different. I just wanted to remind the fact that having a gun can give feeling of security and empowerment and therefore affect on individual's behavior so that he/she is actually in greater risk to get shot.

[mozg]

I can understand that people may think there society is so dangerous that need to carry guns to feel safe, what I don't understand is why anyone would want to be proud of it.

It's no more a point of pride than having a smoke detector and a fire extinguisher.

To me if somewhere is that dangerous, you don't adapt to your environments you use your legs and move to a better environment

There really is no such thing as a place that's immune to criminals. I live in a really nice, fairly affluent neighborhood, but I have no illusions that it means I'm somehow 'safe' from crime, or that it can't happen in my neighborhood.
Being prepared could well be the difference between being:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnkDtgpF ... r_embedded[/youtube]
raped in your own home while on the phone with 911and being:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKiHyR1t ... r_embedded[/youtube]
able to defend myself.

I am armed because it can happen anywhere, like in your vacation home in Vershire, Vermont or the parking lot of Applebee's.

[MrJonno]

There really is no such thing as a place that's immune to criminals. I live in a really nice, fairly affluent neighborhood, but I have no illusions that it means I'm somehow 'safe' from crime, or that it can't happen in my neighborhood

Nowhere is immune to crime but there are plenty of places where being randomly murdered is about the same chance as winning the jackpot on the lottery which is currently 14 million to 1 in any given week, so if that was equal chance to being killed in a country of 60 million would be roughly 4 a week , 200 odd a year). Which is the number of stranger killings in the UK (total murders is about double but thats normally domestics)

[Gallstones]

Yep, and that's the most important thing. But if the attacker had been the only one armed, there victim would probably be laid out on a slab by now.

Or then neither of them would have been shot. When someone is pointing a gun at you, wants money and you are unarmed, usually normal person would just give the money and nobody gets hurt. Usually there is no point for attacker kill the cooperative victim, unless he/she tries something stupid (like trying to reach a gun or start a fight, run away etc). According to studies, people who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, even when confounding factors are taken in account.

I think the assumption that all a person need do is be polite and cooperative to avoid being hurt or killed is delusional and dangerously naive. An adult has the right to risk that and not be pro-active in his/her defense, but no one has the right to expect any other adult to assume that same risk.

Most people who own guns and carry guns will never be shot and never shoot anyone else.

Most people who get stabbed own knives.
So, owning knives increases the risk of being stabbed?

Of course everyone has a right to defend themselves when being attacked. And I never meant that all a person needs to do is bla bla bla.
All I did, I gave another option (with a reference to a study) to FBM's claim that if the attacker had been the only one armed, the victim would probably be dead. That is possible, but it is also possible that both of them walked away uninjured. I don't see you clearly disagreed with this option in your post?

I have already given up to have any deeper gun discussions with Americans, so I have no intentions to discuss about it further. The cultures and people are too different. I just wanted to remind the fact that having a gun can give feeling of security and empowerment and therefore affect on individual's behavior so that he/she is actually in greater risk to get shot.

This is the part that interests me. How is this a fact?

[mozg]

Nowhere is immune to crime but there are plenty of places where being randomly murdered is about the same chance as winning the jackpot on the lottery which is currently 14 million to 1 in any given week, so if that was equal chance to being killed in a country of 60 million would be roughly 4 a week , 200 odd a year). Which is the number of stranger killings in the UK (total murders is about double but thats normally domestics)

I'd rather to be prepared for what will likely never happen than rely on blind luck, especially when the stakes of the wager could very well be my life or death.

[Seth]

Of course everyone has a right to defend themselves when being attacked. And I never meant that all a person needs to do is bla bla bla.
All I did, I gave another option (with a reference to a study) to FBM's claim that if the attacker had been the only one armed, the victim would probably be dead. That is possible, but it is also possible that both of them walked away uninjured. I don't see you clearly disagreed with this option in your post?

That's always a possibility, but as has been said, it's up to the individual to judge the situation in the moment. I doubt you have actually read the study you cited, given the cost of obtaining it, so you're basing your claim on an abstract and without examining the specific claims of the study, which can easily be biased, as is the case with most "gun related" studies published by that particularly anti-gun organization.

So drawing an overall conclusion based on one line in an abstract of an unread study does not produce a strong argument. My personal experience, gained over nearly a quarter century of being armed every day, both as a police officer and a civilian, do not support the conclusion you present, nor do the raw statistics of gun ownership. There are more than 260 million guns in private hands in the US, and far less than one percent of them, something like 1/1000th of 1 percent, are ever used in crimes. This alone disproves your claim.

Moreover, it's simply bad public policy for governments (like the UK) to insist (or even suggest) that mugging victims don't fight back and simply give up their money to the muggers because that emboldens muggers in general and increases the amount of victimization, injury and death. Whereas, the evidence proves that where more law-abiding citizens choose to lawfully carry concealed weapons, there is less violent crime. This is a fact that has been proven time and time again in every one of the 40 states where concealed carry is now legal. That's precisely WHY those states have made it legal. The experiment has been done and the results are conclusive, more guns (in the hands of law-abiding citizens), less crime.

Nothing compels a person being robbed at gunpoint to pull their gun if they deem it unwise to do so in the instant tactical situation, but it's always better to have the option available, and having that option makes you more careful in your behavior, not less. It makes you more situationally aware and more likely to detect potential trouble coming because it enhances your observation.

I have already given up to have any deeper gun discussions with Americans, so I have no intentions to discuss about it further.

Why? Because we refuse to roll over and concede that you're right? That's because you're wrong, and we refuse to allow misinformation and propaganda to be disseminated without challenge.

The cultures and people are too different. I just wanted to remind the fact that having a gun can give feeling of security and empowerment and therefore affect on individual's behavior so that he/she is actually in greater risk to get shot.

How would you know? Have you ever carried a gun? No? I thought not.

Well I have, daily, for nearly a quarter century, and you can take it from an expert that yes, it does give you a feeling of security and empowerment, but that doesn't affect one's behavior so that you are more likely to get shot, it does exactly the opposite in the vast majority of cases. Packing a gun makes you more aware of your situation, and therefore less likely to venture into a dangerous situation unaware, which is the primary cause of people getting robbed.

[FBM]

Of course everyone has a right to defend themselves when being attacked. And I never meant that all a person needs to do is bla bla bla. All I did, I gave another option (with a reference to a study) to FBM's claim that if the attacker had been the only one armed, the victim would probably be dead. That is possible, but it is also possible that both of them walked away uninjured. I don't see you clearly disagreed with this option in your post?

Sure, both of them walking away would be the best result. Do you think that I WANT people to get shot? No way. The ideal situation would be if the attacker hadn't been an attacker in the first place. The attacker didn't leave that option open. He shot the victim first. He's the one that made it impossible for both of them to walk away uninjured, not the victim. He chose that and forced his choice on a peaceful, law-abiding citizen by shooting him in the abdomen. He chose to do that, I imagine, because he assumed the victim held to the same ideology that you seem to. Well, as it turns out, some people are still willing to defend themselves against lethal attacks.

[borealis]

Sure, both of them walking away would be the best result. Do you think that I WANT people to get shot?

Why would I think that?

No way. The ideal situation would be if the attacker hadn't been an attacker in the first place. The attacker didn't leave that option open. He shot the victim first. He's the one that made it impossible for both of them to walk away uninjured, not the victim.

Actually, according to the news, he didn't just start to shoot. He demanded the money first and when the victim refused to give any, he started to shoot. It was as wrong as any shooting, doesn't give the robber any justification to what he did. Neither has the victim any obligation to give his money when someone is pointing a gun at him and demanding money. The point was, (back to the claim that without gun the guy would probably be dead) that would the victim still refuse to cooperate with the robber if he knew that he didn't have any weapon that he can defend himself? If he cooperated and gave the money, would the robber still shoot him? We can't know, but it's possible, imo even more likely, that the answer is no. And I refer to a study, where the risk to get shot was significantly higher when the victim had a gun compared to similar crimes and victims with similar backgrounds who didn't have a gun with them. The risk was even higher when the victim had an opportunity to defend himself.

Now, quiz time! What was my point? You are allowed to pick only one.

Borealis' point was that
a) GUNS ARE EVIL!
b) ROBBERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SHOOT PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T FUCKIN' DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD TO!
c) PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!
d) EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT EVER HAS A GUN ALWAYS GETS SHOT AND KILLED AND EVERY PERSON THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GUN NEVER GETS SHOT
e) Not having gun with you doesn't automatically mean that you are dead, if someone robs you.

He chose that and forced his choice on a peaceful, law-abiding citizen by shooting him in the abdomen. He chose to do that, I imagine, because he assumed the victim held to the same ideology that you seem to.

What ideology I seem to hold?

[Seth]

Actually, according to the news, he didn't just start to shoot. He demanded the money first and when the victim refused to give any, he started to shoot.

This indicates a couple of things about the murderous thug: First, it indicates that he has an utter and callous disregard for human life; second, it indicates that he was highly likely to shoot the victim no matter what the victim did or did not do.

There is a serious distinction between an armed robber who uses a weapon to threaten, intimidate and compel compliance and one who shoots the victim immediately when the victim resists. In the first case, robbery is the primary motive. In the second, as in this case, homicidal intent is perfectly clear. But only in retrospect.

One can never accurately judge whether a mugger is intent only on robbery and escape or is a homicidal sociopath intent on killing witnesses. Therefore it is always best to assume the latter. Whether one should capitulate or fight is a matter of training and proper tactical analysis. A person not skilled and mentally prepared to shoot an assailant nearly instinctively when threatened with force that "trips the trigger" of the self-defense laws is likely better off capitulating initially to such a demand so that they have time to assess the threat and then use deadly force as necessary.

It's all about the instant circumstances, but if you don't have a gun, your options are very limited, and my experience tells me that had the victim not had a gun and had not used it effectively, he would be dead on his front steps and the police would be looking for the killer. Having a gun does not mean that you are obliged to use it, or even reveal you have it if the bad guy has the drop on you. But not having a gun means you have only one course of action...unless you're Steven Segal and are prepared to take them on hand-to-hand.

It was as wrong as any shooting, doesn't give the robber any justification to what he did. Neither has the victim any obligation to give his money when someone is pointing a gun at him and demanding money. The point was, (back to the claim that without gun the guy would probably be dead) that would the victim still refuse to cooperate with the robber if he knew that he didn't have any weapon that he can defend himself?

It depends. Evidently none of the thugs produced a weapon prior to making the demand for money, so it's entirely possible for someone to (wrongly) assume that they can say no without being immediately murdered. Generally, your average non-homicidal sociopath drug-abusing mugger will ask again, produce a weapon and ask again or otherwise try to achieve their objective, which is to get money, without adding a murder rap to the equation.

In this case, it's highly likely that the demand for money was insincere, and was actually just an excuse the thug used to self-justify murdering the victim because the victim "dissed" the thug by refusing to instantly kowtow to him. In all likelihood, this was a race-based attempt at murder, although everybody reporting on the incident is studiously avoiding mentioning the race of the assailants.

The area around Temple University has been the scene of a large number of shootings, and where Eells lives was a lower-income primarily black area of South Philly where white students have been increasingly moving because of low rents.

If he cooperated and gave the money, would the robber still shoot him? We can't know, but it's possible, imo even more likely, that the answer is no.

One can never predict, but this incident points towards your opposite conclusion, as I've explained above. So why would anyone simply capitulate rather than defending themselves? If I'm going to get shot, it's going to be while returning fire, not after handing over my money.

And I refer to a study, where the risk to get shot was significantly higher when the victim had a gun compared to similar crimes and victims with similar backgrounds who didn't have a gun with them. The risk was even higher when the victim had an opportunity to defend himself.

Which may be true, but is only relevant insofar as it affects the decision of the individual to carry and deploy his firearm, but is utterly irrelevant as a guide for public policy regarding whether or not law-abiding individuals are allowed to carry defensive weapons.

Now, quiz time! What was my point? You are allowed to pick only one.

Borealis' point was that
a) GUNS ARE EVIL!
b) ROBBERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SHOOT PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T FUCKIN' DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD TO!
c) PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!
d) EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT EVER HAS A GUN ALWAYS GETS SHOT AND KILLED AND EVERY PERSON THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GUN NEVER GETS SHOT
e) Not having gun with you doesn't automatically mean that you are dead, if someone robs you.

And having a gun doesn't automatically mean that you are dead if someone robs you either. Therefore, your quiz is more of a false dilemma fallacy.

He chose that and forced his choice on a peaceful, law-abiding citizen by shooting him in the abdomen. He chose to do that, I imagine, because he assumed the victim held to the same ideology that you seem to.

What ideology I seem to hold?

That it's better to not go about armed and it is better to capitulate and surrender to street thugs.

[Gallstones]

He demanded the money first and when the victim refused to give any, he started to shoot. It was as wrong as any shooting

I must be misreading something.

Refusing to hand over the money is.....wrong? Wrong?

How about we back up at least a step and say that it is the stealing of the money that is wrong.
I think that is the proper placement of wrong.


This is what is drummed into your head when instructed in the use of firearms--it is a fundamental admonition.
Never point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them.
I think it is reasonable for a person, when looking at the exit end of a firearm, to assume the person on the other side intends to shoot them.

[Warren Dew]

Actually, according to the news, he didn't just start to shoot. He demanded the money first and when the victim refused to give any, he started to shoot. It was as wrong as any shooting, doesn't give the robber any justification to what he did. Neither has the victim any obligation to give his money when someone is pointing a gun at him and demanding money. The point was, (back to the claim that without gun the guy would probably be dead) that would the victim still refuse to cooperate with the robber if he knew that he didn't have any weapon that he can defend himself? If he cooperated and gave the money, would the robber still shoot him? We can't know, but it's possible, imo even more likely, that the answer is no. And I refer to a study, where the risk to get shot was significantly higher when the victim had a gun compared to similar crimes and victims with similar backgrounds who didn't have a gun with them. The risk was even higher when the victim had an opportunity to defend himself.

Now, quiz time! What was my point? You are allowed to pick only one.

Borealis' point was that
a) GUNS ARE EVIL!
b) ROBBERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SHOOT PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T FUCKIN' DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD TO!
c) PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!
d) EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT EVER HAS A GUN ALWAYS GETS SHOT AND KILLED AND EVERY PERSON THAT DOESN'T HAVE A GUN NEVER GETS SHOT
e) Not having gun with you doesn't automatically mean that you are dead, if someone robs you.

f) Robbery victims should open fire immediately rather than waiting to get shot first?