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.
I am SO glad that you anti-gun bigots refuse to buy any firearms. Not only does your ignorance help keep the cost of guns and ammo down for us that do choose to own guns and defend ourselves with them…..it also means that you gun haters will be tops on the thug criminals’ “easy victims” list. Those thugs that you liberals have a soft spot for don’t care about you…you mean nothing to them but an easy target. They need victims to prey upon… better you than me.
I suggest that you gun haters keep blowing your whistles for help….i’m sure that the police will be there in an instant to save you and your life partner.
Gun control: the idea that a girl laying on the ground, raped and beaten to death, is a better outcome than being able to use the one tool that makes her “No!” mean something.
Visit any of the places that have stripped honest citizens of their right to defend themselves (Chicago, Newark, Camden, Baltimore, DC, etc), and then visit the 98% of the country where carrying is a daily occurrence, and see which places are 3rd world gutters, and which are civilized society.
I nearly choked on my coffee as I read the part that said to take a “holistic approach” to safety.
Please tell me what the “holistic approach” should be when you’re shot at by an underage thug-in-the-making. I’m most interested in knowing what defense would be advisable for the writer.
If you’re suggesting that one should change their daily routine, or have to modify their lives to better avoid the possibility of becoming a victim, you are living in some kind of dream world.
Violence is all around and you never get to decide when you become a victim.
The response to being shot at is to shoot back, if you’re lucky enough to be able to do so.
I applaud those that utilize their second amendment right to protect themselves.
I suggest you read “More Guns, Less Crime” By John R Lott jr. It will open your eyes. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
“But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms – legally or illegally”
That’s a bold statement on your part.
Do you have proof that violence is only worsened by those carrying legally? I think not.
So we basically yield to the thugs and criminals because we should not be out of our homes at 2am? Maybe you forget that not everyone has the luxury of living wherever they want. The victim in this case, for whatever reason, was outside armed because he believes in his right to be armed whether it be day or night. He was not armed looking for violence while being outside.
Please tell us where Mr. Eells maybe be today had he not defended himself?
This article deserves a big “F” and Mr. Eells deserves a big “A” for excercising his right to bear arms. and defend himself. I encourage
We don’t need another campus shooting like Virginia Tech and many others to go on without prompt response. Responsible students should be able to make up their own minds on whether or not they want to carry.
What a ridiculous point of view this author has. I don’t know where you got your statistics. I’m guessing you pulled them out of your a$$, but you are completely wrong. And I’m supposed to cower in my home after dark or it somehow my fault if I am attacked?
Stating that gun violence (or any other sort of violence) is worsened by those carrying legally is flat out stupid. I’d really like to see some documentation to support that statement.
FTA:”And in the near-campus community, where a growing student population lives, violence happens–perhaps too often.”
Perhaps? Perhaps?? You mean you don’t know that violence happens too often? You’re not sure it’s too often? Maybe it happens just often enough?
Perhaps you can quantify just how much violence is just the right ammount.
What a dolt this writer is.
America really is in full retreat.
A holistic approach to thuggery? Are you kidding me?
Gun violence will be decreased when the thugs figure out that there are a lot more good people in the world than there are bad people like them, and that those good people will shoot back when their lives and the lives of their loved ones are threatened.
Disarming good people can have only one possible outcome. More crime against innocent unarmed victims.
“…we’re not in the business of condoning gun violence.”
You don’t condone defending one’s self EVEN WHILE BEING SHOT AT?
“…violence happens–perhaps too often.”
Ever at all is too often.
“But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.”
I would argue that gun violence is only worsened by criminals meaning to do harm. Those looking to protect themselves won’t bring them out unless they have to, so I fail to see how more law-abiding citizens carrying would increase violence. If anything, criminals understand they should move to a less gun-friendly region, where citizens likely won’t fight back.
“The Temple News encourages students to consider a holistic approach to safety, rather than equipping themselves with weapons that could lead to more bloodshed.”
Oh, I get it. It’s bad enough that innocent people get beaten, raped, or shot. We can’t have “more bloodshed,” meaning we can’t have the criminals getting hurt too. Nice.
Why do u wear your seatbelt ….why do you have smoke alarms in your home …..same reason we carry guns idiot
Yeah, maybe we shouldn’t put ourselves in situations where gun violence is likely to occur. I’m talking about places like Columbine High School, Virginia Tech classrooms, Luby’s cafeterias, Banks, Safeway parking lots, the comfort of one’s home and any convenience store.
The act of not fighting for your own life because the criminal might get shot shot may be holistic, but insane.
Tsk.
Evil people will do evil things. Stupid people will do stupid things.
The solution does NOT involve preventing good people doing good things.
Who is the retard who wrote this article? May be a good idea to come over to your house and beat the shite out of you and take all your money, since I am sure you will not defend yourself.
There are two different kinds of gun violence, righteous self defense gun violence and evil victimizing criminal gun violence. They are not morally equivalent. Fools and liberal wills not make moral judgements/distinctions.
Vengeance may be the Lords, but self defense is mine.
Whoever wrote this article is probably a Sheltered little girl who still lives at her parents house in Lower Merion and commutes to Temple everyday, oh and she is probably dropped off by her daddy or her limo driver. Come in whoever wrote this article and have the guts to put your name to it if you really believe the drivel you wrote, note how not even one of the commenters agrees with you in the slightest bit.
One more thing. The more good people, I’m speaking of vetted CCW holders, you have carrying guns the sooner somebody has the opportunity to stop a nutcase randomly murdering innocent people on a shooting spree.
To think that the police are the only one prepared and brave enough to stop carnage is extremely short sighted.
I people carrying guns increases violence, I would like to point out that the increased violence is visited upon the right people…those that would harm innocent people. “If you do not have one, sell your cloak and purchase a sword”
Wow! It’s so encouraging to see that young people are standing up for their rights and taking responsibility for their own defense. I commend all the readers who have left comments showing the folly of this editorial. I recommend that the editor follow their lead and learn about self-defense and the rights and responsibilities of free people in a free society.
My daughter who is a Temple student just forwarded me this “Opinion”. If this is the type of people my daughter is going to college with than I think it is time for her to switch. Why do people call the cops when they are in trouble, DUH! because they have GUNS! You say yourself that this student was shot while he sat at his house, would you rather he not defend himself and let the 15 year old keep shooting him till he was dead? Yes this happened at 2AM but crime happens at all times and in all areas, crime does not get an invitation.
You are proposing that Mr. Eells should be rendered defenseless rather than protect himself. Instead you vilify him and make him sound almost evil and criminal for valuing his life and wanting to protect it. Would you not try protect yourself is say you were attacked at 2PM rather than 2AM? Crime happens at all times. Yesterday at 2PM 2 people were shot and killed in a neighborhood Lowe’s store.
Mr. Eells should be hailed by you as a hero because thanks to him thugs are more cautious as to which Temple students they attack.
Even the 2 best-known promoters of nonviolence in history were not opposed to guns. Specifically, Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his book, An Autobiography (page 446):
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest … if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.”
And as quoted in the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001, the Dalai Lama said:
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
Good to see the commentors on the site have more sense than the editor. I have nothing to add other than my support for those speaking up for the right of students (and other upstanding citizens) to PROTECT themselves and best wishes for Mr. Eells.
Legally carried guns cause more violence? Really? Statistics have proven beyond any doubt that right to carry legislation has been followed by lower violent crime rates in every state that has enacted it, every one. Most telling is that the other side of the coin, states and cities with the strictest gun laws, have far greater rates of gun crime.
I propose a new federal law. All homeowners and renters who do not own a firearm will be required to post a 3′ x 5′ sign near the homes entrance stating that no weapons are kept on the premises and in an effort to decrease violence in our society the occupants will in no way resist attack.
Who do you suppose would be robbed, raped, and murdered then.
My gun protects me, my family, my neighbors, and even if you don’t want to admit it it protects you as well.
Dale, what they administrators and many students don’t realize is that all Temple students are already carrying an invisible sign around their necks, saying the following.
“Hi, I am a Temple student, it against Policy for me as a student to carry self protection on campus so Mr. Bad Guy are assured that I am a good target when you see me leaving campus as I am 100% rendered defenseless”
Invisible to all except to the criminals who prey of easy targets. As a criminologist I know that criminals are smarter than most give them credit for, they have “PHD’s” and are “Masters” of the street. They like preying on people leaving bars and clubs that have metal detectors, because they are assured that it will be an easy target. The one thing that criminals fear the most is not the cops but legally armed citizen, that is not a myth or rumor but that is taken from a long term FBI study of surveying criminals who are in prison for life for committing murder and violent crime and have nothing to lose by being honest. GOOGLE IT!.
Firearms used in defense do not increase violence anymore than fire extinguishers increase household fires.
Does the administration tell the women at that school not to dress provocatively lest they be raped?
I am gratified to see that vast majority of responses to this ridiculous article are in support of individual rights. The sheer smugness of the author in suggesting that I re-arrange MY life to avoid the social habits of petty thugs and criminals is exactly why this country is going to hell in a handcart!
“But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.”
Care to cite any actualy studies that bear this out? No? I didn’t think so. Wanna know why? Because they don’t EXIST! It’s been shown time and again that more guns does NOT equal more crime.
As for taking a “holistic” approach to safety, well, physician heal thyself. Leave the rest of us who value our indiviual freedoms to take charge of our own self-defense.
There is a doctor in CT.who lost his wife and two daughters at the hands of two monsters (just two of many many others who are still out there hunting for you who are unable to protect yourself or your loved ones)who were able to get into the house. If the house had an alarm system it was not armed. The doctor didn’t have any guns in the house because guns are dangerous. He,and too many others who live somewhere just over the rainbow and believe that Bad Things only happen to others, learned that BT can and do happen to anyone,anywhere,and anytime. Intelligent people see these disasters and start to think and plan on how to prevent this from happening to them. TEA
HOLISTIC APPROACH?
Shooting a burglar or rapist dead in their tracks is the MOST holistic of approaches as you’re returning that slime back to the earth when you send them down for the dirt nap they ASKED FOR.
>> But gun violence is only worsened by the number of people carrying firearms–legally or illegally.
BZZZZ. . . Thanks for playing. . . .
But STATISTICS say just the opposite regarding LEGALLY carried guns. . . When Legal carry is allowed, violent crime rates go down.
As places like England and Australia made self defense ILLEGAL, Rape, Robbery, Home Invasions and assaults with deadly weapons (clubs, knives) have risen dramatically. But I guess that’s ok as long as a evil nasty gun wasn’t used. . . Because being stabbed and beaten half to death is far more civilized.
So according to the author, the answer to violent crime is to stay indoors and not go outside on one’s own property, rather than keep handy the means to defend one’s self? What a saddening wholesale retreat…
Um, is anyone going to agree with this Opinion editorial? Or should whoever wrote it strongly consider leaving the paper and going to work for the ACLU or something like that.
It’s the pathetic liberal whiners like the author that are undermining this nation. What part of the right to self defense do you not understand? If you don’t want to protect and defend yourself from violence, that’s on you. Don’t try to assume that you can force the rest of us to comply.
As for many of your ludicrous statements (yes… I know they have been addressed, but repetition is good for learning) the verifiable data from FBI and local PD’s say otherwise. Violent crime diminishes when citizens are allowed to exercise the right to self defense.
But trying to educate a liberal is like trying to teach a frog to pilot a plane… it’s a futile waste of time.
Anyone? Anyone at all??
“Rather than carrying, students should be proactive by making smart decisions that can help them from falling into a dangerous situation.”
What smart decision should the students at Virginia Tech have made? Not go to class?
How about: IN ADDITION TO carrying, students should be proactive by making smart decisions that can help them from falling into a dangerous situation.
Holistic: relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts.
Holistic self-defense really consists of taking all the precautions you recommend, and then having a gun as a last resort.
Robbing people is immoral and illegal. The guy has every right to stand on his own porch anytime. How dare you even insinuate he should avoid his porch?! Also, I recall reading he wasn’t out there just for the hell of it; he was smoking.
Temple students Just because your attending college at a great school does not mean that your entitled to do anything you want.Temple is in north philly and Alot of Folks just don’t give a Fu*ck about you Or where you come from. So please beware , use common sense by using safe Judgment . If your outside after dark your just looking for trouble . Anything can happen. It would help if you learned some street smarts.
It is absolutely staggering that The Temple News is exploiting this situation for political points, much less by condemning a man for being armed when his firearm is the only reason he isn’t dead today.
You say Mr. Eells shouldn’t have been on his front porch smoking after hours. Surely your newspaper does not expect the citizens of the city to follow a criminal curfew, certain hours past which no reasonable citizen should be outdoors? We should be imprisoned in our own homes, living in fear of predators on the streets, and those who step out deserve what they get?
The most bizarre thing is to think this publication thinks it has a sort of moral high ground, finding superiority in being defenseless, even if murdered.
It is an established matter of undeniable fact that guns save more lives than they take, and that increasing the number of rules or regulations does not prevent criminal activity any more than laws against drug use, murder, robbery, rape or theft.
Speaking of which, from 2007 – 2009, there were 14 assaults, 640 thefts, 240 burglaries, 9 sexual assaults and 16 robberies on Temple University’s main campus. (Not counting the satellite campuses or crimes occurring just outside campus.)
Allowing permit-holders to carry for protection on campus just as they do in 99 percent of the rest of the state will go much further to prevent crime than more signs, policies or pompous editorializing
Shameful victim blaming.
It is never, never, NEVER acceptable to blame crime victims. Unless you are a criminal and believe you should be able to murder, rape, and maim with impunity.
Where were the cops? Is there not a curfew for 15 year olds in this city? Why hadn’t the cops picked up these robbers? Armed robbery, that is a felony. This could have been prevented if the cops could be everywhere all of the time. Opps, that isn’t possible.I have the right to defend myself.
I refuse to be a victim.
“Holistic” approach? How about a *ballistic* approach? If I’m being shot at by a thug at 2am, I’m not particularly focused on overarching questions of social reform–I’m focused on my front sight post. It takes a lot of nerve to blame the victim like you do in this (woefully ill-conceived) opinion piece. By being outside at 2am he was asking for it? Really? Are scantily-dressed girls asking’ to be raped? People like you disgust me.
To Mr. Eells: kudos for staying cool under fire and defending himself. And to the author: does your mother know you write nonsense like this?
This article is unbelievable. To me this article is telling people to just meet the demands of the criminals and let them have their way. In this instance, the victim was apparantly just supposed to take getting shot as his punishment for being outside at 2am. I simply can not understand this author’s logic. It is a shame that the students at Temple have to walk through such a dangerous area to get to campus. The worst part is that they have to travel to campus unarmed because weapons are not allowed on campus. This logic is mindbending. The idea that as soon as I step foot onto campus property I become a madman with a gun is incomprehensible. Support candidates in November who support gun rights and support concealed carry on campus. http://concealedcampus.org/
I love how out of (so far) 43 comments on this article, not even ONE supports the author’s point of view. Like, there’s not even a debate going on.
I have a few problems with this article. First, the author refers to the 15 year old as a boy. I disagree with this; if he’s old enough to take a gun, threaten someone for his own gain, and then shoot them, he’s not a boy anymore.
Second, ‘not in the business of condoning gun violence’ implies that the editorial staff IS in the business of condoning some other kind of violence… perhaps robbery or rape? They should specify what, exactly they support; I know I’d like to know.
Third, ‘in the near-campus community, where a growing student population lives, violence happens–perhaps too often’… any violence at all is too often, and as so often been said, the best defense is a good offense.
Fourth, ‘When choosing to attend Temple, some quick research will yield some insight into the crimes that occur near campus.’ Quick research indicates students leaving campus are sitting ducks, which would make me choose NOT to attend Temple.
Fifth, ‘Being outside at 2 a.m. for the sake of being outside isn’t safe’: Mr. Eells was outside smoking. Which is worse, shooting a criminal in self-defense, or giving your girlfriend lung cancer from the second hand smoke? For that matter, being INSIDE at 2am isn’t all that safe, either. Look at the home invasion rates for college living spaces. Does a parking garage count as inside? Important things the public needs to know so we can properly insulate ourselves against reality.
So far as the items many of the others have mentioned, my personal ‘holistic approach to safety’ includes a gun (I’m licensed), a pink canister of pepper-spray which is all I’m allowed on campus outside my car (most folks don’t even realize it’s mace, and a portion of the proceeds goes to SGK breast cancer research), being alert and vigilant of my surroundings at all time (think rush hour traffic alertness, only without a car), and avoiding places where I will be forced to disarm. I avoid malls if I can, because they all have no weapons policies, as do most major chain theaters.
The claims that legal gun use makes gun violence worse is unsupported, and therefore invalid. If you don’t believe me, try making a claim in a term paper and not supporting it… your instructor will mark it down.
Oh, and by the way, burying your head in the sand is not a safety measure. Safety measures are for people who have assessed a potential hazard, and have prepared to handle it if it arises.
I suggest you retake whatever class Temple U offers on the founding of this country, and study the world history of gun control… and not just the last 20 years.
I’m student who attends Auburn University. I’ve been carrying a Colt Commander (.45 ACP) pistol on my hip, every day, for two full years now (off campus). Guess how many crimes I’ve committed with it so far? Hint: the answer is less than one.
The author displays an appalling abuse of the word holistic. A holistic approach to self protection involves reality based martial training, up to, and including the use of arms of all types (stick, flexible, projectile, blade, and combination) as well as unarmed technique, awareness, and everything in between. It does not entail cowering from other human beings because they might have ill intent! If it did, then the safest thing one could suggest is for all students of Temple to transfer to institutions of higher learning in safer neighborhoods. Of course, that would bankrupt the university and deprive the author of a forum with which to spew statistically doubtful and tactically dubious advice.
Are you kidding me? I have the right to sit outside my house whenever I damn well please. Next you are going to say I should stop exercising my right to free speech because it might make someone mad and lead to violence, or freedom of religion because an extremist of another religion might attack me.
Also if legally owned guns only lead to more gun violence and do not deter crime in any way, why do cops carry them?
I’m a student who knows first hand how carrying a gun can save one’s life. Several months ago two men tried to rob me by holding a knife to my neck (off campus at a grocery store). Fortunately I was armed and able to defend myself before I was seriously wounded. It is not a situation you want to find yourself in, but Mr. Eells did the right thing and I wish him a speedy recovery
Are you fucking serious? He could’ve died! He defended his life and somehow that’s wrong?? You’re about as fucking stupid as that colin goddard faggot. Geez, when will you people wake the fuck up? The CRIMINALS have the guns, so that means the law abiding need to be able to defend themselves. A college campus is no different than anywhere else people are allowed to carry. If your 21 and legally own your pistol it shouldn’t be an issue. And its really noones business…plus if its concealed then hopefully you’ll never even know that anyone is carrying at all anyways
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.