Yesterday some folks at the Stranger got mighty upset about a post by John Derbyshire at the Corner.
Derbyshire was wondering "out loud" why no one rushed the killer at Virginia Tech. In the fashion one might expect from a paleocon, curmudgeon and mathematician, Derbyshire did so with little sensitivity, thus garnering the wrath of some folks from Time magazine as well.
Read the comments at both aggrieved locations. People are more than a bit testy about the matter.
Yet despite Derbyshire's lack of tact in composing the point, the question remains legitimate. The query was raised in a way at Hot Air as well. Will from Horse's Ass also seems to have admitted to wondering the same thing at comment #11 at the Stranger post above.
I thought the same thing after hearing the number of casualties involved, reports of students being lined up, and the number of rounds fired. Without knowing the details of how the event unfolded it's impossible to speculate further, but it's a fair question to ask. There are potential circumstances where rushing or jumping the killer would have made sense, and circumstances where it wouldn't. Some brave souls may have made the attempt. We just don't know.
Given the horrifying count of the dead and wounded, however, it's a question that should be asked. Not to judge the victims, but simply to understand, as our mind reactively looks for answers to an almost unspeakable outrage that otherwise defies all sense and logic. And in some cases, to try to answer the question in our own minds that inevitably lurks, but which can never be answered definitively: What would we have done?
Posted by Eric Earling at April 18, 2007 07:16 AM | Email This * Don't draw attention to yourself.
* Don't look the bad guys in the eye.
* Cooperate.
* Don't resist."
This approach became the credo for schools, as well.
"One of the victims of yesterday's two murders and the following massacre at Virginia Polytechnic Institute remembered how he had been taught from kindergarten to 12th grade,
'Don't think about resisting. Don't fight. Wait for help.
I felt like a sitting duck. I was a sitting duck. Helpless.'"
The column ends with, "We'll lose fewer students, we'll have fewer mass killings when we teach ourselves and our children to start acting more and cowering less."
The same lesson holds true at U of W, too.
Posted by: Bob Leibowitz on April 18, 2007 07:46 AMMore Guns = Less Crime
Posted by: Libertarian on April 18, 2007 07:49 AMMartial arts instruction
Marksmanship
Survival skills
In thinking about it though, one guy is probably going to be pretty hopeless against a guy armed with two pistols. Really it would take a co-ordinated effort of 3 selfless individuals to have a decent chance of taking this guy down.
Even if there where 3 heroes in the room, it is doubtful that they would be near enough to each other to discuss a strategy, And they probably not have much time. Maybe seconds.
A good number of the more heroic youngsters are probably overseas fighting our wars. I agree with the analysis that we do not teach our children to defend themselves.
From the sounds of it, this guy had a fairly well thought out plan.
However, I do know if I heard the shooting outside and I were a cop and had a gun, I would have done my duty and rushed the guy. After the shooting started, why wait around?
But, as a student, I just don't know.
Posted by: swatter on April 18, 2007 08:37 AMThe point is that as long as well all take the unarmed victim mindset, we are all sitting ducks to whatever crazed aggression comes our way.
Anyone who spends a lot of time in a realtively free and open environment like a University, should be more willing to defend themselves. And if guns are not permitted, then there should at least be more pepper spray, etc.
After the shooting incident at ESL in 1988, I remember many technology companies installed special silent warning systems throughot their campuses. If a shooter arrived, folks had a panic button that would cause blue lights to flash alerting employees to the danger.
There are many such technologies and defensive behaviors that would make these incidents far less common. But the fact is that the left encourages everyone to be a victim, and the left actively makes every effort to philosophically and physically disarm individuals of their weapons, freedom and individual thought.
So it is no wonder there are too many victims when a shooter starts a rampage.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 18, 2007 08:43 AMThere is even MORE reason to allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry those weapons EVERYWHERE... even college and university campuses.
Do you ever wonder why none of our airliners have been hijacked since 9/11?It's mostly due to the fact that those in the hijacker business know that some percentage of our planes have federal sky marshals.For me, the only question is this: would we have 33 dead students today if the fear that someone might shoot back had been present?
Last night, the idiots running WSU Vancouver EVACUATED THE ENTIRE CAMPUS as a result of a threat written on a mirror in a girls rest room. That such idiocy could befall a state institution is further proof that, first, our government is running around like headless chickens; and second, that the fastest, smartest thing to do is to allow those with concealed carry permits to carry their weapons on campus.
More will die if we don't. More "laws," laws to be violated by those bent on death and destruction, will accomplish nothing.
Putting the fear of a possible armed response into the heads of these morons may act as the deterent that might save lives.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 08:47 AMIf the most important thing in the world is Me, then cowering in the corner is the most rational response to an attack, minimising your exposure at the cost of the lives of others.
If the most important thing is We, then I'm expendable for the greater good, and should sacrifice myself if that will help bring the SoB down.
Of course, you make the choice easier if you have a gun and can just shoot the creep.
Posted by: bfr on April 18, 2007 08:54 AM> There is even MORE reason to allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry those weapons EVERYWHERE... even college and university campuses.
Would you have college kids carry guns into their classes?
Oh my.
Maybe high school kids should carry guns into their classes as well.
Yeah ... I am starting to feel safe.
Thanks, conservatives, for seeking to transform college campuses into mini-Baghdads.
Then bfr has an ideal solution:
> If the most important thing is We, then I'm expendable for the greater good, and should sacrifice myself if that will help bring the SoB down.
Boasts of this sort of meaningless. You really don't know how you would react under the circumstances.
Likely, you would wait until some other brave soul made the ultimate sacrifice.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 09:12 AMReally, students haven't had to deal with this issue until fairly recently (1999). The students who are in college now were around 10 to 15 when the Columbine shootings happened. I don't recall my kids going through any special disaster instruction after this - just more of the line-up-and-leave-in-an-orderly-fashion kind of drills. So, basically, the instruction they've had is good for natural disasters but not for this sort of emergency.
I hope the "counseling" that takes place at Virginia Tech includes a discussion of how to react in these kinds of situations. Having a plan of action in place is a more empowering and helpful than simply addressing the grief that follows.
Posted by: Peggy U on April 18, 2007 09:31 AMSomewhat related to the subject of mass killing: Has anyone kept up with the success of the surge?
"Four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 164 people and wounding scores -- the deadliest day in the city since the start of the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital two months ago."
The article also contains what might rank as a great example of military doublespeak:
"''There have been in the past week or two, a couple of days in which the violence has really spiked. Any time that happens it concerns us but it's a little early to draw any trend-type conclusions,'' Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said Wednesday in Washington.
''We've always said that there are going to be good days and bad days ahead. With respect to casualties, this had been a very bad day,'' he added."
4 Bombs Kill at Least 160 People in Baghdad
Thanks to George W. Bush, the Iraqis are experiencing the horrors of war every day.
I wonder why the Iraqis aren't so grateful as George W. Bush would like?
Tunnel vision.
Trembling of the extremities.
Loss of hearing.
Loss of bladder/bowel control.
Extreme panic and fear.
Imagine trying to shoot accurately at an attacker while experiencing these symptoms. Forget about lining up your sights. Even if you have time, you will not be able to do it. There are techniques for dealing with this, but they require practice under stress. Since I wasn’t there I can’t say for sure, by my guess is that these kids were unarmed and untrained to deal with this situation. I believe one has to have lived through this type of confrontation to be judgmental about it.
EXCERPTS:
In the U.S., thugs using firearms at elementary or secondary schools between 1997 and 2002 killed 32 students. The total includes gang fights, robberies, accidents and the so-called "school shootings." All these attacks took place in gun-free zones.
In Israel, however, teachers and parents serving as school aids are armed at all times on school grounds with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was adopted in the 1970s, attacks by gunmen at schools in Israel have ceased.
Government officials must be aware that if they create a gun-free zone, they are liable for any harm it causes. Why would those in authority rather see law-abiding, disarmed citizens die than risk armed citizens harming a criminal?
With lives lost in Germany and the United States in schools that are gun-free zones, and no attacks by armed gunmen in Israel since teachers and parents serving as school aids have been armed, why would we want any area declared a gun-free zone?
History and common sense prove that gun-free zones are dangerous.
It takes a genuine moron such as yourself to equate self-defense and saving lives with the situation in Baghdad.
Let's see, Dave... since you could never get into any college or university, this is going to be a difficult scenario for you to grasp, but what say YOU were in one of those VT classrooms.
Here's a quick quiz: would you rather have been one of those unarmed kids lined up against a wall to get a bullet through their head?
Or would you have rather pulled your own weapon and taken that scumbag out?
Hurry, Dave... people are fricking DYING! YOU can stop him, because he doesn't know YOU are armed. You're all going to die anyway. what have you got to lose?
But, more importantly... what do you have to gain?
Here's another quiz: presuming you spare change enough at that freeway exit you hang out at with the cardboard sign to put your kid through school, and YOUR kid (God forbid that you ever reproduce, you understand, but this is purely for illustrative purposes) was in a VT classroom when that nutjob came in. Would you want him/her/it to have at least a CHANCE to defend themselves? Or would you sooth your bizarre conscience at their funeral by telling yourself, well, heck... at least it was a gun-free campus?
You have some very strange ideas about the real world, Dave... but heck, why would I point out that which you have repeatedly shown over and over on this board again?
And when it comes to the "ultimate sacrifice" (which clearly, you, yourself are will to have someone ELSE make)in your case, Dave, do us all a favor. If circumstances present, run up there, bare your chest, and offer up yourself for sacrifice.
Because clearly, you won't be missed.
And, Dave? Thanks for asking.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 09:49 AM"Likely, you would wait until some other brave soul made the ultimate sacrifice."
My bets are he (Mathews) would be the one trying to hide behind the women.
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on April 18, 2007 09:55 AMThe evil massacre (yes Dave, I made a judgement: the bastard that murdered those people was not misunderstood he was EVIL, just like Saddam, just like Al Qaeda, just like extremist Muslims that slit throats with box cutters, fly planes into buildings and send women dressed in bombs to pizzaria's)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 18, 2007 10:01 AMYou're shot.
And sometimes, you're killed.
"Imagine trying to shoot accurately at an attacker while experiencing these symptoms."
I'd have it all over an attacker experiencing these symptoms if I were armed; it would make it that much easier for me to ventilate him.
But what you fail to empathize with is this: imagine experiencing these symptoms because a nutjob is armed... and you're not. That's the one part of the scenario you left out. Because under these circumstances, when you're GOING TO DIE ANYWAY, what's the worst that can happen? You hit somebody that the attacker was going to kill anyhow?
Now, imagine being dead.
32 kids in VT don't have to imagine it.
And one thing they have all got in common, besides being shot dead, is that not a single one of them was armed.Now, since we're in the imagination zone, imagine what the outcome might have been on a campus with weapons permit holders being armed?Get back to us on that, would you, NW? Because I need to know... I need to see a scenario where an armed student body could have come out worse on this deal then the unarmed student body actually did.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 10:02 AMThey both talked about how the fact that the gunman had to reload his weapons many times - why didn't ANYTHING rush him during a reload? They alluded to the statement "one man to lay down his life for a friend" -- not to say that no one did: think about the professor who laid his life down to protect the students) -- but the thing is, a bunch of young kids at the prime of life and physical health didn't attempt to overpower the guy? Didn't he have his back turned to someone at some point?
Of course, hindsight is 20/20 - but we talked about the fact that during a crisis is no time to plan strategy. The time to plan strategy is _before the crisis_, and you must train for it, so if the crisis comes, your memory and training take over. Think of the EMTs who train for dealing with medical emergencies. They don't do a lot of work on the fly - they've trained for emergencies, and are generally ready for them when they occur.
These kids, however, were apparently trained to give up and hope that someone would protect them. (Please note again "apparently" - I'm making a generalization based upon what seems to have happened, not a truth that no one stood up.)
CS Lewis talked about "men without chests" - that we teach men to have no soul and then wonder when they become craven.
We've gotten the pacifist generation the baby boomers wanted, apparently. I'm sure the angry letters to the editor and marches will begin soon. But at some point, should't we teach our children how to fight for their own lives?
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 10:07 AMMy understanding is that he had TWO weapons.
Rushing him would have only worked if he was reloading BOTH at the same time.
However, pulling a .25 and shooting him with it while he was reloading would have worked perfectly.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 10:10 AM> And when it comes to the "ultimate sacrifice" (which clearly, you, yourself are will to have someone ELSE make)in your case, Dave, do us all a favor. If circumstances present, run up there, bare your chest, and offer up yourself for sacrifice.
You conservative "Happiness is a Warm Gun" types are the ones who are boasting about your own bravery and willingness to die.
Well, Hinton, are you a brave person?
Hinton, are you willing to make a sacrifice of yourself?
Let the conservative self-styled "Hero" types here make empty boasts.
Or perhaps you people should demonstrate your bravery by joining the army and heading to Baghdad.
Does that answer your question?
And why is it that you refused to answer my quiz questions?
Just the tiniest bit morally bankrupt, are you?
But, as always, Dave... thank you so much for asking.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 10:19 AMWe talked about "dead heroes vs. survivors" - it's not an easy thing to decide to do something that will very well likely lead to your death, and with no guarantee that it will work.
But certainly 30 kids died because no one successfully "rushed him." We'll have to see if anyone tried. I don't know that anyone did - it looks as if there were several successes in just keeping him out of classrooms, one (at least) by a man who died to save his students.
This is all Monday morning quarterbacking, of course - but the discussion was, why no one seemed to have tried to do this.
It led also to a discussion of the years 1933-1938. What would have happened if all the citizens of Germany had organized and resisted against a very small number (at first) of evil men? How many would have been saved had September 1, 1939 been simply another day in the Weimar II Republic?
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 10:20 AM> But at some point, should't we teach our children how to fight for their own lives?
These incidents -- if you haven't noticed -- are extremely rare. You might as well teach your kids how to survive a meteor impact ...
Conservatives are so proud to fight other people's wars in their own minds and with their overactive "brave" imaginations. Thank God that you won't ever have an opportunity to verify that you actually are hero material.
The situations might not occur often, but as the Boy Scouts say, "Be Prepared."
We don't really learn much from history. We do like to repeat it, though.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 10:24 AM> I wore the uniform of this country for 14 years, Dave.
> Does that answer your question?
No, but it does justify John Kerry's comments regarding the military ...
Hey, Hinton, are you one of those Rambo types who misses the opportunity to kill which the military provides?
And ... Hinton, since you are one of the brave-boasters ... could you tell me how many purple hearts you have earned for your bravery?
Dave, do us all a favor... and go play on the freeway, would you?
THERE'S a good chap!
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 10:25 AM> It led also to a discussion of the years 1933-1938. What would have happened if all the citizens of Germany had organized and resisted against a very small number (at first) of evil men? How many would have been saved had September 1, 1939 been simply another day in the Weimar II Republic?
Which also brings up the thought ... how many soldiers & innocent Iraqi civilians would be alive today if a significant number of brave Americans had resisted President Bush railroading America into an unnecessary aggressive war?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 10:28 AMFeel free to answer my little quiz questions, you sniveling little coward... and then, perhaps, we can chat about me.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 10:29 AMI'm not blaming. I'm just asking why. The kids aren't being blamed for not trying or not being heroic. And the facts aren't all known yet.
But I'd like to know more. If it was really just hopeless - that there's no way at all ever to have stopped him during his rampage - then I'd like to know that. _Asking_ the question isn't wrong. _Assuming_ blame before the facts are known is probably not helpful.
Good comment. Thanks. You have lived through it, so you are more qualified to speak about it than I am. My comment was based on my readings of law enforcement and combat professionals. Audie Murphy described a kind of controlled rage that he and other combat men experienced in war. He also tempered this with the warning that losing ones head in a fight is one of the quickest ways of losing ones life. I have experienced blind rage, but since the other guy elected to boogy, I don't know what the physical outcome of a fight would have been. I can tell you that, at the time, I believed that I was invincible. I think it is correct that, in the VT situation, the right thing would have been to take the shooter on. One might die, but it seems that death was inevitable anyway. Why take it lying down? Even if one were shot, it might have given others the courage and the time to jump in and take the shooter out.
It seems that we have reached some sort of impasse: I won't answer your questions nor will you answer mine.
I just want to tell you, should I ever find myself in a situation demanding heroism, I will devoutly wish for Rambo Hinton to protect me.
How many guns do you carry, Hinton?
What sort of guns do you carry?
I don't know ... maybe I wouldn't feel so safe with such a Rambo nearby.
You know ... friendly fire ... very common tragedy in the military.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 10:32 AM> I can tell you that, at the time, I believed that I was invincible. I think it is correct that, in the VT situation, the right thing would have been to take the shooter on.
This is a conclusion which is only valid after the fact.
Those who experienced the tragedy directly were faced with the automatic flight-or-fight response and they took the course of action which seemed (at the time) to provide the greatest potential for survival.
I am going to guess that no one on that campus knew that the exits were chained.
Would you have known?
It is bad enough that the students experienced a traumatic tragedy, they don't need gun-loving conservatives spitting on them based upon a false charge of cowardice.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 10:38 AMI'd use the analogy of VT's reaction to the slayings. The first set of killings in the dorm led to a reasonable course of action based on the belief that the suspect was an old boyfriend who was already in custody. No one imagined that a lunatic would violate state law and carry weapons on campus ("weapons are icky") & begin shooting people randomly. VT's reactions in hindsight don't appear to fit the situation perfectly, because they hadn't trained themselves in dealing with this type of escalation. I imagine that lots of public institutions are now reviewing their plans to deal with these types of situations now.
The great thing about the First Amendment is that anyone gets to exercise it, so we can talk about the issue.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 10:45 AMI replied by telling you that I served this nation in uniform for 14 years, which actually proves that, in fact, the answer is "yes."
I even thanked you for asking.
So, questions are being asked... but YOU won't answer them... instead, relying on that leftist tripe you always spew here.
Further, you would be better served by refraining from commenting on the military... since, while you had no problem with me putting my ass on the line to keep YOU free, you had no particular need to engage in kind.
See, Dave, your "you won't answer my questions" thing is yet another crock on your part... yet another lame effort to deflect, yet another week attempt to avoid addressing the issue: if you were in a classroom, would you rather just be killed, or would you want the opportunity, afforded by carrying a weapon, to fight back?
It's a simple question... you're a simple guy.... but you lack the courage to even answer THAT question, instead, typically of the hypocritical left, demanding that people live under a standard that you, yourself, would not want applied to you.
Are you, in reality, that pig Rosie O'Donnell? You know, the one that wants to take my weapon away while she surrounds herself with armed body guards?
Reality check, Dave: questions aimed at who I am have nothing to do with questions of what you would do.Man up, answer the damned question, or be continually called for the fricking gutless scumbag you are.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2007 10:52 AM"Get back to us on that, would you, NW? Because I need to know... I need to see a scenario where an armed student body could have come out worse on this deal then the unarmed student body actually did."
Take it easy. I am on your side. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. No doubt in my mind that the shooter would have justifiably been met with a hail of lead had other students been armed. Had I been there, some of that lead would have been mine. There are people in this country who scream just at the sight of a gun in the holster of a responsible, licensed gun owner. The last I heard, an open carry is still legal in Washington State, but you're asking for trouble if you do it. My grand daughter started screaming at the sight of a BB gun leaning against a wall. What with all the crap liberals teach in colleges, it doesn't surprise me that so many would be paralyzed with fear at the sight of a gun.
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 18, 2007 10:53 AMHaving said that, I've told my sons to tell their friends in class that if someone comes in with a gun to all throw their books at them. If someone had 25 textbooks flying at their head, it would pretty distracting and you might be able to tackle him.
I also told my sons not to sit by the door (first person after the instructor the gunman sees), get out a window if possible,slide to floor and flip the desk and don't call attention to yourself. And, barricade the door if you hear shots or if the shooter has been in the room, after he leaves.
By the way, when was the last time you heard of a woman killing a large number of people (not her children)? No, I didn't think so. (not to say this was the shooter's problem; he was obviously mental but you have wonder what is up with so many men willing to kill other people as well as the large numbers of men, worldwide, who are involved in the illegal sex trade. There's a lot of control issues that men just can't deal with in a rational manner so they seem to want to hurt other people.)
Posted by: westello on April 18, 2007 10:56 AM> Don't feed the cowardly trolls.
Nor should anyone feed the Chickenhawk Rambo-Trolls.
You people are so wise. You know the solution to every problem. You people are all brave, too. You are well-armed as well.
Wait ... aren't there any gun-loving conservatives in Virginia? Aren't there a handful of these NRA conservatives on the VT campus?
Where were they?
Too bad all of the Rambo conservatives are in Seattle. Please spread out across the country and relocate to the unarmed liberal college campuses. You could keep all the nation's students safe.
These brave conservatives would never be so brave in any circumstance that actually required bravery.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 10:56 AMI must tell you, neither civil words nor truthful words will affect the troll. Paying him attention is all the reward he needs. He does not fight "fair" because he does not listen and respond.
Think of him as a Internet 'bot that responds to keywords with canned answers. There's no "there" there, if you catch my drift.
If you stop responding, he will tire of his game and infest another site.
The First Amendment gives everyone the right to act like a fool. But some aren't just acting.
By the way, on behalf of my wife and kids, thanks for your service. We are honored to have men like you (and women, too) who put themselves on the line to serve and protect our country.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 10:58 AMI like the idea of throwing the textbooks. Those suckers can be huge. The key thing is, I think, to teach our kids to think offensively here - what can they do to protect their friends and their own lives.
I hope lots of parents have discussions about how to resist evil not just by avoiding it but by fighting back.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 11:02 AM> you were in a classroom, would you rather just be killed, or would you want the opportunity, afforded by carrying a weapon, to fight back?
Well, according to the scenarios discussed here, there was only two options: die as a coward, or die as a brave Rambo conservative.
And ... honestly ... those really were the only two options. Evidently a person carrying two weapons will have a considerable advantage over a brave student pulling out his/her gun.
Shootouts seldom have happy outcomes.
Don't you remember the Wild West?
Rambo always won because he was purely a fictional character.
In real life, Rambos often die or kill innocent bystanders.
> Think of him as a Internet 'bot that responds to keywords with canned answers.
Yeah ... thank God that the conservative thinkers are piling on the school kids with their empty allegations and emptier boasts.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 11:06 AM"It is bad enough that the students experienced a traumatic tragedy, they don't need gun-loving conservatives spitting on them based upon a false charge of cowardice."
Do you actually read the post on this site or are you just about blathering? I suggest that you go back an read all of my posts. If anything is false, it is your ASSumption that I am implying cowardice. If you want to lay down and take a bullet because of your beliefs that no one should be able to defend themselves, that is your choice. Just don't expect me to do it.
By the way, can you please tell me what you're on? I would like to try it out so that I can get some kind of idea why you think the way you do.
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 18, 2007 11:12 AM> Two more options exist: die saving some lives, or survive saving some lives including your own. You may choose to live your life without hope.
Well, Katomar, we now have four options regarding the outcome of a brave NRA conservative rambo in the classroom.
I suspect that there are many more potential outcomes and that plenty of these end in tragedy.
In other words: No one knows how things might have turned out differently.
You conservatives are merely engaging in fantasy with all your Hero & a Concealed Weapon (in class!) talk.
> And by the way, since you mention "friendly fire", I don't imagine any fire coming your way will ever be friendly.
Another good reason to keep conservatives from bringing their guns to class ...
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 11:36 AMThe Seattle Times, Seattle PI and the local tv stations all ridiculed it. (Another wacko idea form Texas.) The Texas democratic party called for the firing of the principal of the school that did the training.
How many people do you think would have been saved if the Virginia Tech students had learned the best way to take out a gunman when they were in high school?
You "I believe in government" types can be sheep, but some of us are smarter. We aren't going to allow ourselves to be sheep led to slaughter.
Posted by: Johnny on April 18, 2007 12:00 PMI will qualify my thoughts by stating that I am a soldier, and as such, I live and work among soldiers, so the mindset is a bit different from the average Joe on the street.
What I wrote yesterday: "Where I work, the universal reaction was "Why didn't somebody grab their sack and do something?" After the first couple of classrooms, they had to have known what has happening. There had to have been rooms with more than one male-I won't say man-in them. Why didn't they gang up and go after him. He might have gotten one or two, but not all of them. And personally, I'd rather go out shot in the face reaching for my killer's throat than shot in the back running away. Or with my own bullet in my brain because I could have done something and didn't."
And by sack, I don't mean bookbag.
Even if he had two pistols, you can only load one at a time-the operation requires two hands, meaning the other gun had to be tucked away somewhere. And, unless you're a competition shooter, reloads take a few seconds, say around 3 or so. And a human in full sprint can cover more distance than you think in 3 seconds.
And while textbooks can make useful improvised weapons, I prefer dry chemical fire extinguishers.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on April 18, 2007 12:11 PM> I don't think I spoke of concealed weapons in class.
Good. You should listen to the insane NRA conservatives ... they'd have all of our nation's students armed.
Johnny has another idea:
> How many people do you think would have been saved if the Virginia Tech students had learned the best way to take out a gunman when they were in high school?
Have we degenerated so much as a society that we really do need to teach high school students how to handle an armed lunatic?
I mean ... come on ... this isn't exactly a routine occurrence. Yes?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 12:13 PMI want my kids to be independent thinkers who are ready to fight for survival. Any tools they can use in a strange or threatening situation can't help but improve the odds.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 12:14 PM> I will qualify my thoughts by stating that I am a soldier, and as such, I live and work among soldiers, so the mindset is a bit different from the average Joe on the street.
If only those students were soldiers ...
At least your solution does not involve students pulling out concealed weapons from their bookbags and purses!
Now, soldier, how would you bring peace to Baghdad? A surge maybe ... good idea!
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 12:16 PMGun shots scare even the best.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 18, 2007 12:17 PMhttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=
Posted by: Paddy on April 18, 2007 12:19 PMAgain, it's not blaming the kids who died or who were shot. It's just something we should do more agressively so that our kids aren't rendered helpless because their first thoughts are "when will the police come rescue me?"
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 12:23 PMIn my younger days most of us learned to shoot& or fight.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 18, 2007 12:26 PMQuestion: How do you tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans?
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock, cal..40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 911?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
Sorry, I couln't resist.
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 18, 2007 12:32 PMAnd to the person who said, how often does this happen? Thankfully not often but it has occurred enough times for me to believe I need to give my kids (and these are older kids; I wouldn't go scaring little ones) some idea of what to do to protect themselves. As a mom, I bitterly resent having to live in a society where this happens often enough that I have to add this to my list of Mom concerns. I have a child at college, one in high school and my husband works at a university. I need to try to figure out ways to protect them all. (Well, not my husband; he thinks of his students as "kids" and he'd be the first to stand between a shooter and them.)
Posted by: westello on April 18, 2007 12:55 PMRead the whole thing.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 18, 2007 12:58 PM> Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.
Oh, yeah ... the Islamic terroristfeel really scared.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot ...
Let us suppose that you are an Iraqi civilian who is innocently driving his vehicle in Bagdhad who happens to experience the misfortune of encountering bloodthirsty hyperaggressive American mercenaries who are exempt from both military and civil law ...
Well, in that case, I suppose that the poor civilian has no choice except to die.
You know ... this is exactly what has happened in Iraq very recently & numerous times.
We Americans are not the innocent peace-loving people of this world. Americans enjoy killing nearly as much as the terrorists, as your illustration illustrates.
"Nice pattern" ... but what about yourbloody, bloody hands?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 01:06 PM> Those of us with concealed weapons permits are sheepdogs. We're out there protecting the sheep.
Ha! Have you seen the movie Pulp Fiction?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 01:08 PMWell we all can see the DM lives in a NON-Real world.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 18, 2007 01:15 PM"In my younger days most of us learned to shoot& or fight."
Exactly. When I was a kid, I once complained about a bully, and was told by my mother; "Listen kid, you better learn how to fight." I took that advise to heart. It is amazing how much respect a good strait right hand will earn one.
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 18, 2007 01:31 PMBrings to mind the realistic understanding of evil held by peple
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 01:31 PMThis guy had it ALL planned out.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 18, 2007 01:34 PM> "Listen kid, you better learn how to fight."
Of course ... the problem of violence is easily solved by more violence.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 01:35 PMHe quotes Grossman.
especially about the pull between those who would care only for themselves and those who would care for others. Each has a strength and a weakness.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 01:40 PMViolence as a solution to violence?
Hey, it worked with Hitler. And Mussolini. And Tojo. And Jefferson Davis.
All we are saying /
Is give Force a chance.
Now go hug a cop.
Posted by: Rey Smith on April 18, 2007 01:42 PMHe was really a nice guy... No really, DM said so. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 18, 2007 01:45 PM-Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 26; Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on April 18, 2007 01:48 PMHere is the scene from Pulp Fiction that I referenced in my previous post. Listen to it carefully:
Pulp Fiction Restaurant Scene - Long
I know that you conservatives glorify violence but that seems like only an excuse for you to be violent.
"Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
There is another way ...
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 01:53 PM""Nice pattern" ... but what about yourbloody, bloody hands?"
I heard a question posed by a caller on Rush's show yesterday. It was related to the VT killer' homicide note. In the note, the killer referenced his anger toward "rich white kids" and "American debauchery" as reasons for his actions. The question posed was, "Where and how did he learn this hatred?" The way I read it is that lunatic liberals (no offense to liberals here who have a brain) love nothing more than to blow off at the face about how rotten America is, and how horrid white people are, and how Americans are destroying the environment, and on, and on. Sound familiar David? So David, how do you feel about the blood on your hands?
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 18, 2007 01:55 PMNice..... and not a bad movie either. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 18, 2007 01:55 PMThe original story is in a collection. http://www.amazon.com/ALTERNATE-HEROES-What-Might-Have/dp/0553282794/ for more info.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 02:05 PM
Yeah right Dave!
And how many wars have you DEMs/Libs put is in?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 18, 2007 02:06 PMI think we've stayed on tangent pretty well.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 02:07 PMThis thread ran out a gas many post ago.
It's now beat on DM thread. (-:
The gun-free zone, which is supposed to protect people has been shown, over and over, to do just the opposite: it protects the idiot/psychopath/criminal who would take advantage of the victims' inability to protect themselves in kind.
We need to be very careful how we procede from this point forward and make sure that what we do makes real sense, and is not just feeding some political agenda.
People are stating that the gun laws need to be strengthened, etc. "to protect the children".
As it is, firearms are the most regulated legal-commerce item in the country. They are also the most regulated "right".
If we were really serious about "protecting the children", maybe we should outlaw motor vehicles, playground equipment, toys, and school sports.
How many children die every year in auto accidents alone?
According to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research, between the 2000-2001 school year and the 2004-2005 school year, 164 students (high school and college) have died while participating in school sports.
That's more than the number of students who have died in school shootings in the same period of time.
New laws "against" won't help.
Waiting for authorities won't help.
Making it easier (finding ways to enable us) to protect ourselves will.
Posted by: Douglas Aldrich on April 18, 2007 02:14 PM> The way I read it is that lunatic liberals (no offense to liberals here who have a brain) love nothing more than to blow off at the face about how rotten America is, and how horrid white people are, and how Americans are destroying the environment, and on, and on. Sound familiar David? So David, how do you feel about the blood on your hands?
Those who love the environment are not known to love guns.
The gunman has this much in common with the NRA: They both love guns.
He must have been some type of NRA conservative ...
Actually, I only really enjoyed the movie when I stopped trying to compare it to the book.
Heinlein packed a whole lot of philosophy into a supposed war novel.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on April 18, 2007 02:20 PMDO NOT RESPOND to the troll. Ever. Don't acknowledge the troll by name or initials. Don't allude to the arguments. Just ignore it. Soon it will find another blog with innocent people who will attempt to speak to it as if there were a mind behind the keyboard. Just not here.
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 02:21 PM> And here's a great short story on how pacifism can defeat Really Bad Men With Guns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article
Did you read the article?
"The story then takes what could be deemed an intensely bleak tone. In the story, Gandhi draws a moral equivalence between the Nazis and British imperialists, something that seems consistent with what the actual Gandhi believed and suggests at best a kind of naivete, and other elements of the story are critical of Gandhi's real-world beliefs."
Yeah .. the British did commit genocide numerous times during the colonial era.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 02:22 PM> ... as if there were a mind behind the keyboard. Just not here.
I doubt very much that there are any active minds on the Seattle side of the keyboard.
You people would prefer to let your guns to do all the thinking for you.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 02:25 PMI hope my kids take heart the information they're learning about self-defense, and start from the attitude of "I need to be alert and ready to respond."
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 02:26 PMsheesh
Posted by: steve miller on April 18, 2007 02:35 PM"Of course ... the problem of violence is easily solved by more violence."
Let me pose this to you. Suppose someone walks up to you and knocks you on your ass. Suppose this individual continues to knock you on your ass. Every time you get up, he knocks you down again. You try to get up to run, and he just continues to knock you down. Then he starts kicking you and pummeling your face. He won't listen to reason. He just keeps beating you. At what point do you fight back, or do you even bother? Tell me. How would you resolve this? You are by yourself with no police or caring conservatives to lend a hand. What are you going to do? Get the picture? If not, perhaps you should apply for this year's Darwin Award. If you think the above scenario can't happen, you are walking around blind without a cane. Guess what pal, this situation goes on every day in schoolyards and back alley across this country. It happened to me as a child until I broke the bully's nose after which he left me alone, and guess what? He didn't bother and of my friends anymore either.
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 18, 2007 02:44 PM> At what point do you fight back, or do you even bother?
I don't know, NW ... this is a circumstance that I have never experienced. I cannot even guess how I would react.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 18, 2007 03:17 PMAlso, the Israeli professor who stood against the door while students escaped through the windows saved many lives.
The whole idea of students leaping over furniture and falling bodies and running through a spray of bullets to attack the shooter sounds more like a scenario from a movie. I've been in life-or-death situations and the situation actually causes unbelievable clarity. All thoughts are pushed from your mind except for survival. Humans are wired for survival. As some people have said, the only way to go against this basic survival instinct is through training, such as the training that soldiers get.
Although the instinct to save yourself can be overcome if you have the realization that by sacrificing yourself, you can save many other people (or someone whom you feel is weaker, such as a child). Since the Israeli professor had been a survivor of a concentration camp, it makes sense that he was able to have this realization pretty quickly, because he had been in the situation before where he had thought about that possibility.
Posted by: technomom on April 18, 2007 06:33 PMwho's to say how anyone would react, but i agree with the general trend to produce sheep in American society--quite against our traditional "national instinct" to be proud, independent and survive.
my prayers go the the victims' families and that community. we need to re-emphasize self-survival skills and be less p.c.--especially in this age of terror. take some notes from our Israeli friends on their daily life--be calm but vigilant--and ready. this coincides with our genral lack of civil defense training--reaction is worse than preparedness. cant be ready for evey insane person, but basic skills can help.
funny how society look to brave leaders, yet indoctrinates young people for years to tow the line like sheep and do not resist. i'm not promoting anarchy, but self-defense and being vicious if needed to defend one's life.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on April 19, 2007 06:22 AM"I don't know, NW ... this is a circumstance that I have never experienced. I cannot even guess how I would react."
Well, for Christ's sake, then how can you sit around and make judgment calls about the validity of some of the suggestions made here by those who have experienced what you have not, or at least have thought about it.
I haven't a clue as to statistics on how many people go through life without ever having to defend themselves. Maybe you are lucky, or maybe you have led a sheltered life. Whatever. The real world can be a dangerous and ugly place, and I sincerely hope that you never have to pay a price for your ignorance and/or lack of experience. Think about it.