Collegiate Carrying
Students reveal that they carry weapons for protection against violent crimes, but is there a better approach?
In the wee hours of Sept. 5, Robert Eells shot back.
The sophomore reportedly was sitting in front of his house at around 2 a.m. Labor Day when a 15-year-old boy and friends demanded money from the student. When he didn’t comply, the boy shot him in the stomach. To the surprise of many, Eells, equipped with a gun of his own, fired back as the boy fled.
Following the event, many around Main Campus praised Eells for his resilience and ability to rise to his own defense.
While The Temple News wishes full recoveries for both of the young men, we’re not in the business of condoning gun violence.
Although the university does not allow students to carry weapons on Main Campus, students’ perception of campus goes much further than Temple-owned property. And in the near-campus community, where a growing student population lives, violence happens–perhaps too often.
When choosing to attend Temple, some quick research will yield some insight into the crimes that occur near campus.
The Temple News hopes that students come to the university fully prepared to exercise precaution and common sense when around campus, especially at night.
Still, being wary isn’t always enough to prevent a situation from arising.
As evidenced in “Shooting triggers self-defense discussion,” Kate Kelly, Page 1, many students living near campus carry weapons of self-defense or equip their rented homes with them, in case of an emergency.
But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.
The Temple News encourages students to consider a holistic approach to safety, rather than equipping themselves with weapons that could lead to more bloodshed. This includes choosing where to live and recognizing times when sitting outside isn’t necessarily the safest bet.
Being outside at 2 a.m. for the sake of being outside isn’t safe–and perhaps the gun-wielding Eells knew that.
Rather than carrying, students should be proactive by making smart decisions that can help them from falling into a dangerous situation. If they do, there won’t be a need to pull the trigger.
Loading ...
Come to Utah! You can carry on public college campuses, and criminals know that. Makes for a very safe environment. Oh, and admin, this story makes a lot of accusations and provides no facts. I know its an opinion piece but this is a really stupid opinion when all the facts are contrary to the aforementioned claims.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
I fully support the right of any law abiding American adult to defend themself with lethal force as needed.
That includes Temple students.
By the way, whoever wrote this article is a total loon.
“being outside for the sake of being outside at 2Am isn’t safe- And perhaps Ellis knew that.”
Excuse me? Are law abiding citizens supposed to cower inside in fear? Is there some curfew that affects adults in Philadelphia that i was not aware of?
To the author of this article: You are completely nuts.
An earlier poster mentioned the ACLU, but consider this. The ACLU is an organization committed to defending civil liberties. What I don’t understand is how many so called “liberals” choose to interpret the entire constitution liberally, with the exception of the Second Amendment.
I should think that the ACLU would be the champion of the right to self defense as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Why such inconsistency in applying liberal values? Get out of my life government! Let me carry a weapon of my choosing to defend myself if the need arises, let people marry whoever they want to marry, let women decide if they want to terminate a pregnancy, just gtfo of my business. The ACLU should be supporting the rights to self defense along with all the others.
To the author, my only fear is that if a criminal attempts to victimize me, that I will be unable to return fire, congrats to Robert Eells, you’ve maintained one of the highest traditions of being an American, you refused to become a victim.
Couldn’t agree with the author more. All you fucking law-abiding victims should just disarm and be defenseless so we can destroy you.
I’d like to reach out to the author of this opinion piece.
It is my strong suspicion that the author(s) have little to no experience with firearms and little to no education about the safe and proper use, ownership, and carry of firearms.
We live in a strange society. If one were to publish a completely unsupported opinion piece in a college town newspaper about, say, particle physics, one would get ripped apart when the lack of education became obvious. However, it’s still considered acceptable to publish a piece fueled entirely by misconceptions derived from popular culture. As the comments in this thread will tell you though, this is changing.
I want to encourage you, author(s), to consider that if this many people feel this strongly about the issue (55 comments so far), perhaps there’s more to this than you’ve seen at first glance. Perhaps you should do some reading – there are excellent books out there on armed self defense, such as the “Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery”, by Ayoob.
I’ll address a few of the misconceptions in your piece:
“While The Temple News wishes full recoveries for both of the young men, we’re not in the business of condoning gun violence.”
None of us are. Violence is a horrible thing, to be avoided at any cost. Unfortunately, there are those in this world who cannot be reasoned with, cannot be bargained with, and are not interested in compromise. The truth of the matter is that so long as we leave in a world where irrational people exist, violence will be a reality. And in a world where a firearm can be manufactured by hand in any modestly equipped machine shop (something that will never change), gun violence will always be a threat as well.
We don’t get to choose whether the violent criminals will use weapons in their crimes. They will use guns, or knives, or broken bottles, or rocks they pick up in the street, or barring those, they will use strangling hands against those weaker than themselves. What we do get to choose is how we as law-abiding citizens will be equipped to respond. Will we be ready to deal with the threat, or will we find ourselves unarmed?
The gun is not a magical artifact that taints and corrupts all it comes in contact with. It is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. A safety tool that allows the user – in this case the student who protected himself – to cut a path to safety. Your statement that you “never condone gun violence” reflects a near-superstitious fear of the firearms that you do not understand. Inanimate objects should not be what concerns you – rather, violent criminals who are willing to threat life ought to be your chief worry here.
“When choosing to attend Temple, some quick research will yield some insight into the crimes that occur near campus.”
It’s good to see that you admit and understand that violence happens, and that students are vulnerable to it.
The next step is understanding that law enforcement cannot usually and is not obligated to intervene in violent crime on behalf of any individual citizen. 5 of 6 people will be victimized at some point in their lifetime (Koppel, “Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization”, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1987), police response time to high priority calls like armed robbery is on the order of 12 minutes, 30 seconds ( van Kirk, “Response Time Analysis”, US Department of Justice, 1978) (Speleman and Brown, “Calling the Police: Citizen Reporting of Serious Crime”, 1981), and for this reason the police have no duty to protect any individual ( Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
It’s very easy for you to sit in your comfortable office and render the opinion you’ve expressed here – but I suspect that if you were standing alone in an alley staring into the muzzle of a violent criminal’s gun, as the student who defended himself had to do, you’d sing a different tune.
You criticize our solution without providing a viable alternative.
“But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.”
While correlation is not causation, it’s worth taking a look at this blog post (http://www.allamericanblogger.com/17432/violent-crimes-drop-12-reason-unknown-in-other-news-record-number-of-americans-carrying-concealed-weapons/), in which the author notes that violent crime has dropped 12 percent while concealed carry has increased.
A recent law passed in Virginia to allow carry in bars and restaurants led to a 5.2% decrease in gun related crime in bars and restaurants over the course of a year.
In short, the truth, based on available evidence, is precisely the opposite of what you claim. It’s counterintuitive to the uninitiated – but then, some truths are.
“The Temple News encourages students to consider a holistic approach to safety, rather than equipping themselves with weapons that could lead to more bloodshed. This includes choosing where to live and recognizing times when sitting outside isn’t necessarily the safest bet.
Being outside at 2 a.m. for the sake of being outside isn’t safe–and perhaps the gun-wielding Eells knew that.
Rather than carrying, students should be proactive by making smart decisions that can help them from falling into a dangerous situation. If they do, there won’t be a need to pull the trigger.”
This is where the angry tone in the responses you’re getting is coming from.
This is why people are upset with you.
It is never acceptable to blame the victim. This is akin to the scumbag who says, after victimizing a co-ed at a party, “She was asking for it.” No, no she wasn’t.
This student didn’t ask to have his life threatened by an armed criminal. The criminal came and put a gun in his face against his will – and if you had gone through what he went through, you would not dare to say what you have said. The student who defended himself was and remains the victim in this situation.
Your assertion that the student should have chosen “where to live” demonstrates a lack of compassion for the likely economic realities involved in his situation – I’m certain you’d feel better if he had chosen to live in a gated community with a swimming pool in his back yard – and likely, so would he. What you seem to neglect is that this isn’t always possible.
You yourself state earlier in the same piece, “Still, being wary isn’t always enough to prevent a situation from arising.”
The fact of the matter is that no, contrary to your assertion, violent crime cannot always be avoided. Here’s an example from our school in Florida, where a man was robbed at gunpoint as he was getting ready to deliver the campus newspapers – a mere 1,000 feet from campus, behind his newspaper office – http://www.alligator.org/news/local/article_dfcf6f8a-d2ba-11e0-9ad8-001cc4c03286.html
He had to be there, because it’s his job to deliver newspapers.
He had to be unarmed, because he was going to go on campus.
Perhaps you’d like to write him a letter too, and explain why he’s at fault?
Or perhaps you’d like to write a letter to Amanda Collins, who was raped in a parking garage at the University of Nevada at Reno, and explain to her why she’s at fault?
We can’t choose where and how we will be victimized.
We can choose what tools we will have at our disposal to respond.
If you want to wax philosophical about self-defense, I want to encourage you to avail yourself of the many excellent resources on the topic and get educated.
If you have any questions, I’m available at contact@sccgators.com.
another instance of our publicly funded system of higher education spewwing libtard bullcrap.
rather them promote true american values, those of self reliance,respect for law and individual liberty they try to impose a failed policy of tolerance, dependence on the state and the false hope that if you cower to the threats of the ghetto all will be o.k.
the ROOT of this problem is the pansy editors and the philosophy of appeasement the liberal press at temple operate under. dont say anything real but have no end to the discussions about the best value at q-doba.
fyi, the king has NO clothes.
Wow the person that wrote this went to college?
Blame the victim? for sitting on his own porch? are you kidding me?
This must be an Onion article and we are just getting trolled.
If her approach to self defense is to be indoors at ” late hours ” I would like two things from the author of this article. 1. I would like a precise time for when I have to come indoors coupled with a lifelong garuntee that as long as Im indoors at this time nothing bad will ever happen to me. 2. An equally detailed plan and explanation for what causes and then prevents home invasions that accure at 2 am or later? I only went to tech school so maybe its a quantom physics thing I dont get. So Ill stick to my CCW, 10 years USMC, and all the exsperience Ive gained being in countries with violent crime rates equal or worse than Philly. Lady, get out of your mercedes and walk around the area this poor guy was shot in at night and get some real life education of your own.
First understand this article is someone’s opinion. We all know what opinions are like. Now that most of you are thinking a little clearer.
The Temple News fails miserably to advise everyone there are the wolves, the sheep, and the sheep dogs( aka. the Warriors).
Here is a good place to start so you may have a better understanding.
http://www.west-point.org/wp/wp-forum/OnSheepWolvesAndSheepdogs.html
You do not have to live in fear. It is better to understand fear and how to use it to your advantage.
Train Hard, Live Easy.
“Students reveal that they carry weapons for protection against violent crimes, but is there a better approach?”
No.
Whomever wrote this is nuts. Maybe he thinks he can talk a bullet from entering his body.
Give me a break! You can’t sit outside on your own porch at 2am in a college town? So when are we supposed to go inside and hide from 15 year old thugs? What happens when he kicks in the door? What else should have the victim done in this situation? Or is the paper just upset that he returned fire?
“Being outside at 2 a.m. for the sake of being outside isn’t safe–and perhaps the gun-wielding Eells knew that.” Perhaps he didn’t know that the Temple news recommends that everyone gets inside after sunset.
Way to blame the victim here, putting the blame on the guy who got shot FIRST.
What kind of idiot writes this garbage? Seriously, consider another field where the public doesn’t have to listen to your idiotic opinions.
I am reminded of a town in Nevada, where back in the early days, every person in the town was armed, and showed it. there was no crime, mostly cause everyone knew that everyone else was packing heat.
And women should stay indoors and not wear short skirts, ’cause otherwise they’re really asking for it…
“But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.” ???? Are you freaking out of your mind? Okay I get it, someone shoots you, do nothing. Someone stabs you, do nothing, someone beats you to death, do nothing. What has happened to the common sense you are talking about?
“Rather than carrying, students should be proactive by making smart decisions that can help them from falling into a dangerous situation. If they do, there won’t be a need to pull the trigger.” Again, are freaking serious?????? You can be inside your own home and criminals will still be able to get to you and harm you. Wake up. This is not your fantasy world.
As for me, I refuse to be a victim. If I die in the process, I will give them hell or take them with me so they cannot victimize others.
This woman was inside her house.. look what happened to her.
Is it her fault too?
http://broadandcecil.temple-news.com/2011/09/20/12th-susquehanna-shooting-update/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+temple-news%2FBandC+%28Broad+%26+Cecil%29
The author states, “But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.”
Ever hear of the book written by John R. Lott, Jr. called “More Guns, Less Crime?”
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo6686900.html
Here’s a link to an episode of the old television show called “The Rifleman” where problems arise when the temporary sheriff decides that everyone else in town should be disarmed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qnEjQ6u2PQ
Isn’t male privilege fantastic?!
The author is right in that *most* violent situations can be avoided by excercising good judgement. But to claim that *all* “gun violence” is a bad thing is absurd. Eels did nothing imprudent by sitting on his own porch. And shooting a violent ghetto thug in self defense should not be lumped in the same category as getting shot by a violent ghetto thug. One is the agressor, the other a victim. Not every instance of “gun violence” is equal to another.
By the way, I spent a few years on that campus, the entire time armed. In no way did I ever contribute to “gun violence”, as I have always done everything I can to avoid getting involved in ANY violence. How the author of this piece can claim that simply going about your business while legally carrying a concealed firearm contributes to “gun violence” is beyond my comprehension.
>But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.
Do you have any source statistics for that? Even the National Academies say that there is no evidence of concealed carry increasing any crime rate, and some evidence that it decreases the murder rate. Other studies show significant negative effects on crime rates, and disproportionately large decreases in crimes victimizing women.
To the editor, I mean really, did you expect this article to provide positive exposure for your college? You’re essentially advocating that your student body who are not breaking any laws to hide in their homes because they might become victims if they sit outside on their property. Is that really the message we want to teach people? Is this our country? Our community? Or do the criminals dictate what we can and cannot do?
To the author: You do not condone “gun violence.” What is your opinion on self defense? Do you condone self defense against violent criminal attack, or do you condemn it?
What an idiot this author is.
You contradict your closing statement by suggesting that we don’t stay home?
“Rather than carrying, students should be proactive by making smart decisions that can help them from falling into a dangerous situation”
and
“The sophomore reportedly was sitting in front of his house …”
Soooooo – this kid should really be spending more time at the library?
The only thing Eells needs to do differently is improve his aim.
If you are convicted enough to offer your opinion in public you should at least sign your name to it…”admin”
Hey i swear i saw the author at a party that lasted till 3am. since it was after dark, i guess she stay over at the frat house.