Armed Student, squares off with armed robber.

[Danno 1,228]

PHILADELPHIA STUDENT CARRYING LEGAL FIREARM SHOOTS IT OUT WITH ARMED ROBBER

A Philadelphia college student put his firearm carry permit to good use Monday, as he shot it out with a would-be robber, hitting him twice.

Robert Eells, 21-year-old Temple University student, was in front of his off-campus house smoking a cigarette at 1:30Am Monday when a group of teenagers approached him and asked for money. The main suspect- who is 15-years old- allegedly then attempted to rob Eells, who refused the demand for cash.

At that point, police say the suspect started shooting, and hit Eels in the stomach.

But Eels was able to fight back. He drew his own legal pistol and fired, hitting the attacker in the chest and leg.

School officials say Eells is recovering at Temple University Hospital. He had a license to carry the weapon he used and faces no charges in the incident.

The suspect is also in the hospital, and will face aggravated assault and attempted robbery charges. Police are searching for two accomplices.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/philadelphia-student-carrying-legal-firearm-shoots-it-out-with-armed-robber/

[slim 1,530]

Ban cigarettes and this wouldn't happen.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Ah yes the exception that proves the rule yet both victim and assailant were wounded. Here is a more common gun story:

Deaths from IHOP shooting "hit real hard"

September 07, 2011

Another of the people shot at the IHOP restaurant in Nevada Tuesday has died. That brings the death toll to five, including the gunman, who took his own life. CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker in Carson City has learned more about him.

Nevada National Guard member Miranda McElhiney died of her wounds late Tuesday. Also killed were National Guards members Heath Kelly and Christian Riege, and civilian Florence Gunderson.

"In a few short hours, we lost the same number of soldiers we lost in the entirety of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, so it hit real hard," said Brig. Gen.

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=20102945&videofeed=36

There's more to the story if you follow the link...

[SMR 368]

Ah yes the exception that proves the rule yet both victim and assailant were wounded. Here is a more common gun story:

Deaths from IHOP shooting "hit real hard"

September 07, 2011

Another of the people shot at the IHOP restaurant in Nevada Tuesday has died. That brings the death toll to five, including the gunman, who took his own life. CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker in Carson City has learned more about him.

Nevada National Guard member Miranda McElhiney died of her wounds late Tuesday. Also killed were National Guards members Heath Kelly and Christian Riege, and civilian Florence Gunderson.

"In a few short hours, we lost the same number of soldiers we lost in the entirety of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, so it hit real hard," said Brig. Gen.

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=20102945&videofeed=36

There's more to the story if you follow the link...

The full article notes that the assailant had a history of mental illness. How did he get two assault rifles? If I had to bet, I would bet that a law was broken. While guns are obviously dangerous, further restricting healthy, law abiding citizens access to them would have likely not helped.

[Ready to do it 101]

I disagree. If the victim did not have his own gun on him neither of them would have been shot. Why? Because he simply would have handed over a few bucks to the 15 year old criminal with the gun and he would have gone on his way. Violence is bad. If there was no such thing as the right for a regular citizen to have a gun neither of them would have been injured.

The full article notes that the assailant had a history of mental illness. How did he get two assault rifles? If I had to bet, I would bet that a law was broken. While guns are obviously dangerous, further restricting healthy, law abiding citizens access to them would have likely not helped.

[Danno 1,228]

I disagree. If the victim did not have his own gun on him neither of them would have been shot. Why? Because he simply would have handed over a few bucks to the 15 year old criminal with the gun and he would have gone on his way. Violence is bad. If there was no such thing as the right for a regular citizen to have a gun neither of them would have been injured.

Don't take this personal but your comments ring of the Pansy mentality which is held b way too many these days.

You have no idea how that exchange went yet you blame the victim for resisting.

[Ban Hammer 13,498]

I disagree. If the victim did not have his own gun on him neither of them would have been shot. Why? Because he simply would have handed over a few bucks to the 15 year old criminal with the gun and he would have gone on his way. Violence is bad. If there was no such thing as the right for a regular citizen to have a gun neither of them would have been injured.

does that not presume to read the mind of the assailant?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

does that not presume to read the mind of the assailant?

Does the OP prove once and for all how great the world would be if we were all armed? Sorry, glad to a degree this thing sort of worked out for the victim, but you know just as little regarding the facts so it is just as reasonable to assume NOBODY would have gotten shot had the victim been unarmed. As it was both victim and assailant took bullets, so not a great argument for gun safety.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Don't take this personal but your comments ring of the Pansy mentality which is held b way too many these days.

You have no idea how that exchange went yet you blame the victim for resisting.

Still can't get that log out of your eye, or does the "judge not" biblical teaching, to say nothing of "turn the other cheek," apply to you?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Will say a prayer of the student and a wish for a speedy recovery.

[Ban Hammer 13,498]

Does the OP prove once and for all how great the world would be if we were all armed? Sorry, glad to a degree this thing sort of worked out for the victim, but you know just as little regarding the facts so it is just as reasonable to assume NOBODY would have gotten shot had the victim been unarmed. As it was both victim and assailant took bullets, so not a great argument for gun safety.

it would probably be a safer bet to say no one would have been shot if the assailant hadn't been armed.

[Danno 1,228]

Still can't get that log out of your eye, or does the "judge not" biblical teaching, to say nothing of "turn the other cheek," apply to you?

I don't get your religious fanaticism, what does this story or my comments have to do with judging someone spiritual condition?

As to your on-topic remarks, at what point do you justify resisting?

You seem to be saying you would only defend yourself or property if it were risk free.

This is what I consider a pansy response.

I have gotten into it right on a downtown sidewalk because I would not "donate" some change to a street hustler.

If you want to take my money, even if it's my change, you are going to have to work for it.

I'm not so dogmatic that if someone had a gun to my head I wouldn't act differently but if I have the means to resist, I will before i let someone disrobe me of my stuff.

[SMR 368]

I disagree. If the victim did not have his own gun on him neither of them would have been shot. Why? Because he simply would have handed over a few bucks to the 15 year old criminal with the gun and he would have gone on his way. Violence is bad. If there was no such thing as the right for a regular citizen to have a gun neither of them would have been injured.

I was referring to the story that "Ready for One" posted (the one that I quoted, the one that actually talks about mental illness and assault rifles). It wasn't a robbery gone bad. The assailant seems to have just cracked and started shooting people.

In regards to the original article, maybe, maybe not. The funny thing about armed robbery is that after you give them money, they still don't have a reason not to shoot you (sure, there are various moral reasons and differences in the legal repercussions, etc. but those likely aren't relevant to many armed robbers). The article clearly shows that the assailant was prepared to shoot the victim. Maybe the victim didn't have any money on him. Maybe if he didn't return fire the assailant would have shot him again until he was dead.

Obviously it's all speculation and naturally two people getting shot is not a great outcome. But the uncertainty of the outcome if the victim was unarmed is exactly the point. He might be short a few bucks. He might be unharmed. He might be dead. But he did have the means to defend himself and he survived. You take that away and only the bad guys will have guns.

[slim 1,530]

Ah yes the exception that proves the rule yet both victim and assailant were wounded. Here is a more common gun story:

Deaths from IHOP shooting "hit real hard"

September 07, 2011

Another of the people shot at the IHOP restaurant in Nevada Tuesday has died. That brings the death toll to five, including the gunman, who took his own life. CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker in Carson City has learned more about him.

Nevada National Guard member Miranda McElhiney died of her wounds late Tuesday. Also killed were National Guards members Heath Kelly and Christian Riege, and civilian Florence Gunderson.

"In a few short hours, we lost the same number of soldiers we lost in the entirety of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, so it hit real hard," said Brig. Gen.

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=20102945&videofeed=36

There's more to the story if you follow the link...

If you'll notice, in your story five people were killed.

In the OP, one armed person sent two assailants on their way and nobody was killed.

I disagree. If the victim did not have his own gun on him neither of them would have been shot.

Your own story (above) disproves this post. Nobody in the IHOP was armed yet they were still shot.

Does the OP prove once and for all how great the world would be if we were all armed? Sorry, glad to a degree this thing sort of worked out for the victim, but you know just as little regarding the facts so it is just as reasonable to assume NOBODY would have gotten shot had the victim been unarmed. As it was both victim and assailant took bullets, so not a great argument for gun safety.

Gun safety during an armed robbery? You can't be serious!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

it would probably be a safer bet to say no one would have been shot if the assailant hadn't been armed.

Ah see, you continue to make assumptions. Our victim might have been the only shooter if only he was armed. The story doesn't include any details regarding who drew their gun first.