Sunday, September 11, 2011

Temple Student Fights Back

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.

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.


  1. MikeB: “Even if you have a gun of your own, give him your money and let him go on his way.”

    Be sure to give him your gun too. Or would that be considered contributing to gun flow? Making a theft too easy? Providing a gun to a know criminal? Either way, I am sure you’ll crucify them.

  2. You have no common sense. You have no way of knowing that the victim wouldn't have been shot, even if he gave the criminals his money.

    Yes, it's better to have two wounded, if one of the wounded is the criminal. If he wasn't wounded, he might have been able to get away with the shooting, and go on and shoot others. He also might have killed the victim, if the victim didn't shoot back.

  3. " 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 forgot option three: the robber would have just executed Eells.

  4. Let's see, his roomates are dropping out and moving out of the city. What are the real costs to society for the gun violence?

    Will his roomates need counselling?

    How much will the hopsitalisation cost society?

    We already know that people will move from this area, but will the violence follow them?

    Are people really safer having people walk around armed? The US is one of the most heavily armed societies, yet note the frequency that these incidents happen.

    NO, he shouldn't have had to give up his money, but the people who robbed them shouldn't have needed to ask for money in the first place.

    Of course, it's easier to say get more guns on the street than to address the causes of crime.

  5. I think we've all sees studies which indicate cooperation and submission are the best ways of staying alive in this kind of situation. It's obviously not 100%, but it's is the best shot.

    Just think about it. A guy who gets the drop on you, has a gun pointed at you, what's your best move? Do you go into one of those Jack Bauer tricks and pull out your own gun, take the safety off and shoot the bad guy? Are you that fast?

    No, as much as it burns your ego to submit, that's the smart move.

  6. Was it Laci or Dog gone that posted the videos on how to disarm a gunman? I thought that was what you were supposed to do.

    Of course if everyone would just let the criminals do whatever they wanted, then we could free up a lot of resources. We could get rid of all the police officers because nobody would be doing anything to stop criminals. I mean if it is wrong for a citizen to resist a criminal what makes it right for a police officer to resist them?

    Actually, there would not be any "criminals" because nothing would need to be against the law if we aren't going to resist their behavior anyway.

    There you have it - a violence free society (assuming the armed robbers don't just shoot you anyway). Of course I wouldn't work too hard to get anything nice for yourself as someone stronger than you may just decide they want it.

  7. It was me, and there are non-lethal ways this could have been ended before shooting would have occurred.

    But, the Temple student chose to use a firearm and is now in the hospital in critical condition.

    Your point?

  8. Laci - in attempting to disarm the person using non lethal measures, couldn't the student be putting themselves at more risk of being shot? Sure it is tragic that this student was shot by a criminal, but the criminal being shot by the student is mostly just an accepted job hazard on the criminal's part isn't it?

    Or we could all follow Mike's advice and simply let the would be robbers take what they want. Nobody gets hurt (assuming the robber doesn't shoot or attack you just for the hell of it) and you can always just go and take someone else's stuff to replace what you lost.

  9. Not really, Jim, there are ways that the criminals could have been neutralised before a weapon appeared.

    I would prefer to not get too into it, but one would need to be aware of the situation. Secondly, the method for neutralisation needs to be non-lethal.

    The one method I can mention would be a dog. Criminals prefer not to attack people who own dogs.

    Anything else requires some training and knowledge, but learning a proper martial art is good for your health.

    Anyway, you aren't a gun owner, so why do you care?

    Next point, criminals usually prefer to not rob people, but would burglarise property instead.

    So, the best method is prevention.

  10. Laci - I know your dogs are well trained and would never kill someone, but lets say a homeowner has a pair of Rotweiler's and a person breaking into the house is killed by them while the no one else is home. Should the homeowner be held criminally responsible for the death of the would be robber?

    If instead the dogs are stolen and then used to kill someone else, should the homeowner be liable for making such deadly weapons easy to steal from his house?

  11. Yes, my dogs could kill someone if I am sufficiently threatened.

    No dogs without a person being threatened should kill someone. So, yes, the homeowners should be responsible.

    I have no problem with a rottweiler holding someone until a person arrives, which is proper schutzhund training.

    Unles you know the command word, dogs don't kill people. Every dog that is trained to attack has a command word known only to the trainer/handler.

    You don't know much about dogs or dog training. Dogs are very seldom trained to kill.

    If it were a drug dealer's pittbull that kills someone, then the dog should be put down and the owner held responsible.

    The comparison between dog and guns fails here. Unlike bullets, dogs can stop. Dogs can think.

    Dog can also go around corners and track their targets.