Cho, narcississm and a nation of cowards.


PDA






SaintofKillers
April 19, 2007, 04:05 PM
First I try and think logically and not emotionally. I hear alot of other countries complaining about how we are basically a nation of gun nuts.


IMO Here is the problem with America coming from an american. We as a society have fostered a public of narcissism and cowards. Most are concerned about one thing, themselves and no one else. This is what fosters situations like this Cho wacko.

The other thing is we are mostly made up of a nation of cowards. Someone comes in with a gun and we cower in the corner like sheep in a burning barn while the barn door is wide open waiting for the farmer to come and save us all.

Sorry brothers and sisters it isnt going to happen. Not one of those people with the exception of courageous professor tried to stop this clown. They were all too concerned with their own safety and too scared to do anything to try and stop it.

I guess 9/11 didnt teach us anything. In any situation FIGHT BACK. Our survival as a society depends on it.

I am not ready to die as much as the next person but if the situation arises I am not going to sit there and just take it. Someone comes to kill me, family or friends they have got a fight coming. I teach my 6 and 8 year olds that. Its sad that this is the way the world is but its something we all have to face.

About guns. No amount of banning is going to stop what happened. Cho was determined to kill and the students at VT were denied the right to have the tools to defend themselves. I am not saying firearm ownership is for everyone its not. In fact I think if you want a firearm then you need to have a mentor to guide you in the proper use and safety of a firearm. Plus its more fun that way.

Law enforcement is there to solve the crime after the fact. They dont have the time or resources to protect everyone. Nor do they have an obligation to do so.

Everyone has an obligation for thier own personal responsibility and safety.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cho, narcississm and a nation of cowards." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArmedBear
April 19, 2007, 04:35 PM
I agree with you.

However, you do realize you're being un-PC?:uhoh:

BTW my son died two months ago, so if anyone thinks I'm without compassion for the victims' families, or that I want to spread blame and guilt to the grieving, all I can say is, "up yours!"

I want this to be a great nation and a great world. And I pray for those grieving in Virginia.

1911Tuner
April 19, 2007, 04:43 PM
The notion of fighting back...even to save oneself...has become politically incorrect because that involves *GASP* violence! And violence is simply unacceptable, you see...except, of course, for the ones who are hired to do violence.

Much more kind and gentle to run and call someone to come and risk his or her life to do what we ourselves are unwilling to do. It doesn't matter that the poor policeman has a family to care for. He must come and risk his life to save mine! It doesn't matter that the poor serviceman...young and in his prime...would like nothing better than to come home and spend his days providing for his family. He must risk his life to save mine because I'm just not
comfortable with violence! Violence is baaaa...baaaa....baaaad! I'm a good person! I just can't hurt anybody! Here's a hundred bucks! You go do it for me! (But don't hurt him TOO bad, or I'll lobby to have you removed from office and imprisoned.)

:barf:

And so it goes that we've been so thoroughly brainwashed by the cry: "Violence isn't the answer to everything." that we've come to feel that
violence isn't the answer to anything. There are some situations that can only be handled with violence. The tragedy at Virginia Tech is one such situation.

Whenever violence is offered...return the favor tenfold.

wingman
April 19, 2007, 04:44 PM
I guess 9/11 didnt teach us anything. In any situation FIGHT BACK. Our survival as a society depends on it.

The press and public schools love victims, and they believe they are building
a better America.:(

SaintofKillers
April 19, 2007, 04:52 PM
I am sorry for the loss of your son.

That aside, I think you were missing my point. Society has taught our children to roll over when confronted with a situation such as this. Our children need to be taught when backed into a corner to fight back.

As for not being PC, honesty is my only excuse.

ArmedBear
April 19, 2007, 04:59 PM
Sorry Saint.

I wasn't clear; I was being sarcastic about being "PC."

I agree with you 100% about your first post, and about valuing honesty.

My point about my son is that someone might think that you and I are callous for thinking this stuff. But I know for sure that I'm NOT callous. I've never been less callous in my life than I've been for the last few months. I've also never been more honest.

Like you, I want to see us have COURAGE as a nation. It is better to die on our feet than live on our knees.

Hawk
April 19, 2007, 05:16 PM
A couple of Cooperisms always brighten my day.

VIOLENCE
January 1975--"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure--and in some cases I have--that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."


ARMED ROBBERY
February 1992--"We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is OK as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber. It is the responsibility of the victim to turn the tables and demolish the robber. Street crime will cease only when the perpetrator becomes convinced that his operations will almost surely result in his death."



FIGHT BACK!
November 1993--"Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!"

jfh
April 19, 2007, 05:19 PM
I agree with the general thrust of the sentiments here--but I do see some hope on the horizon.

As one of those on the front edge of the boomers--technically, I am not one, but I was impacted by the cultural stuff of the Late Sixties and Early Seventies--this anti-violence stuff is strongest among

1) the 'activist' mindset from about age 45 to 60,
2) the subset 'female-activist' mindset of that age, and
3) the sub-subset 'educator-female-activist' mindset of that age.

In sum, there is a dominance in public education right now by people who think this way. However, those women are heading towards retirement, AFAICT. And, I do NOT see as much knee-jerk antiviolence stuff 'mongst the next generation or the one following it.

The other factor is the cultural / red-state-blue-state stuff, and I dunno the solution to that one. I think we will see it, however, when France or New Jersey collapses economically.

Jim

eliphalet
April 19, 2007, 05:25 PM
ArmedBear,

Nothing I can say will help but you have my deepest sympathies to you, I know some of what your pain is, mine will have been gone 7 years come August. The hurt never completely stops but it does get easier as time passes, and this is making my eyes wet.

I'm a good person! I just can't hurt anybody! Here's a hundred bucks! You go do it for me! (But don't hurt him TOO bad, or I'll lobby to have you removed

My BAD, me hits back.

As one of those on the front edge of the boomers--technically, I am not one, but I was impacted by the cultural stuff of the Late Sixties and Early Seventies--this anti-violence stuff is strongest among

I am a boomer so to say, child of the 60's, and you must know a buncha different ones than I do, but I did tend to run with a pretty much wild bunch, but also your right in that was when it began. Also I have just thought of this and it will not come out right. but here goes anyway. I think the PC way of thinking is another approach to Soften the American spirit so to speak. If a people are afraid or so indoctrinated to NOT stand up for their own personal protection and rights how can they be expected to stand and fight for their rights as a whole? hmmm
I guess I was cut from a different cloth, I have always stood up for me and mine and if you don't think so step over the line so to speak into my personal space so to speak PC or not I will see to it you stop that action one way or another right or wrong in the eyes of of this PC world. If it takes a soft word or a stick or stone or whatever I will stand up for my rights! rant rant I stop now, bad boy bad boy not PC shame shame. NO! believe this way and always have, always will. But then I have always been kinda a rebel.

Cosmoline
April 19, 2007, 05:40 PM
The other thing is we are mostly made up of a nation of cowards. Someone comes in with a gun and we cower in the corner like sheep in a burning barn while the barn door is wide open waiting for the farmer to come and save us all.


I've just about had enough of this bravo sierra. Boyos, if someone comes in and starts shooting at you with a firearm you either get to cover or you DIE. Life isn't like the movies, and what you call "cowardice" is common sense. An unarmed attack on a motivated gunman is suicide.

YOU HEAR THAT SHOOTING, YOU GET TO G-D COVER OR YOU GET THE HELL OUT!! Are you people really so ignorant? Did you grow up watching too many "A Team" episodes? Unarmed charges against a guy pumping bullets into anything that moves WILL get you killed. It happens over and over again, from the Luby's shooting to the most recent one. An opportunity to move in may present itself, or it may not. But the assumption that anyone with a pair should rush to the gunfire is dangerously idiotic. Ron Edwards, the VP of Bethel High, was a big tough guy. He thought he'd go out into the hall and man handle the shotgun from Evan Ramsey. Well as I got to hear blow-by-blow during the depos in that civil suit, all Edwards got for his courage was a slug through his innards and death. THAT is what good old American courage will get you. Forget about it. The only hope you have of surviving, let alone getting the edge on a punk like that, is to be even more ruthless and sneaky than he is. If you get lucky enough to be behind him when he's putting a new magazine in, slam a table leg into his head and keep on pounding till it's jelly. But the chance of getting that opportunity is extremely slim. If you've got no iron, you've got almost no chance.

Would you rush a brown bear unarmed? Keep in mind that a young male punk on a shooting rampage is, bar none, the most dangerous animal on the planet.

wingman
April 19, 2007, 05:54 PM
I've just about had enough of this bravo sierra. Boyos, if someone comes in and starts shooting at you with a firearm you either get to cover or you DIE. Life isn't like the movies, and what you call "cowardice" is common sense. An unarmed attack on a motivated gunman is suicide.


Numbers can sometime be on your side better to rush an armed person then be shot setting still ,(and no I do not consider myself a John Wayne far from it) but 5 or more people rushing a shooter some will survive or at least a fighting chance. That is common sense to me.

eliphalet
April 19, 2007, 05:59 PM
5 or more people rushing a shooter some will survive or at least a fighting chance.

But remembr this happened fast , unlike flight 93 these people didn't have time to think and plan.

Cosmoline
April 19, 2007, 06:01 PM
That kind of common sense and a few grand will buy you a coffin. Forget about it. Even if some of you make it, you're going to have a heck of a time getting the guns away, let alone restraining him. The loon will have the strength of three men. The only hope is a sneak attack using the maximum possible force against his cranium and neck to try to kill him quickly. If you have a knife or heavy club, maybe. But totally unarmed? It's going to be damn near impossible to pull off. You'll save many more lives securing a room and getting an evac route going out the window, helping folks down.

unlike flight 93 these people didn't have time to think and plan

And remember, all they had to deal with were box cutters. Going against firearms is a completely different animal.

wingman
April 19, 2007, 06:53 PM
You'll save many more lives securing a room and getting an evac route going out the window, helping folks down.

That is great if an exit exist however if in a closed room and someone
decides to shoot you would it not be best to die trying. I will not, cannot
believe it is best to lie quite while someone puts several rounds in your
body. It sounds to me as if your making the standard police statement
never fight back and that is basically what this thread is about.

1911Tuner
April 19, 2007, 07:09 PM
Quote:

>Unarmed charges against a guy pumping bullets into anything that moves WILL get you killed.<
*****************

And so will crouching under a desk. So the question remains: Better to die trying to do something...or to die doing nothing? At least with a sudden rush, you have a chance to live. With the other, your odds drop exponentially.

Cover is good if you can find it AND keep your distance AND return fire. When the cover means little more than an extra few seconds of horror and dread waiting for the ax to fall...it's not really cover. Hesitation is your enemy.

BigG
April 19, 2007, 07:14 PM
I don't think everybody responds the same to threats. I have loved ones I have tried to reason with and pleaded, offered to provide the gun, etc. who would not use a gun in their own defense. They would cower, as would a good proportion of the general public. Not everybody is going to fight - another legitimate response is flight, and some do that by burying their head in the sand.

I believe this to be true, despite my best wishes it weren't.

wjustinen
April 19, 2007, 07:43 PM
If that "brown bear" was after my loved ones I would rush it buck nekkid with nothing but a broken fingernail.

As I sat in my college classroom over the past months it was readily apparent to me that the only likelihood of survival for me and my classmates was to stop the threat with whatever was available.

Last fall we had a college shooting in Montreal with 20 wounded. One of my classmates worked in that college.

Jeff was right about fighting back and I thank God that I was able to receive my training from him in '76.

Caimlas
April 19, 2007, 07:54 PM
The cowardace isn't so disturbing in and of itself. What makes it all the more disturbing is that we're not hearing those who ran say anything other than "it was terrifying": no regrets for not having done more, and no sorrow for running while others died.

We've become a nation which regards our own individual, selfish existence in higher regard than doing the right thing and, just as significantly, doing what is simply necessary for our own survival. Despite the rhetoric of individualism, there is no such thing: we are all connected in one way or another to those in our community, and what we do in regard to them has a way of coming back to us.

Caimlas
April 19, 2007, 07:57 PM
And so will crouching under a desk. So the question remains: Better to die trying to do something...or to die doing nothing? At least with a sudden rush, you have a chance to live. With the other, your odds drop exponentially.

Indeed. Better to die standing, with my feet in motion, than on my knees, entertaining a foolish notion. I intend to go out with my bootstraps pulled on.

Caimlas
April 19, 2007, 08:01 PM
And remember, all they had to deal with were box cutters. Going against firearms is a completely different animal.

It's been shown repeatedly that a person can close the ten yards from a gunman in the time it takes the gunman to get the gun up. An improvised effort at a doorway to tackle him to the ground - even if your dead body simply holds the f*cker down for a moment so others can tackle him - would be better than nothing. Furthermore, this guy reload at least twice, judging by how many bullets were expelled. Likely more like 3-6 times, I imagine. How much distance can be covered between the lock of the slide and its return between magazines? That's what, 4 or 5 seconds?

It could have been done, and should've been at least attempted. It wasn't. All the students ran like livestock.

EricTheBarbarian
April 19, 2007, 08:09 PM
i guess this kind of kills the arguement that if you use a gun for self defense they will just take it away from you

eliphalet
April 19, 2007, 08:11 PM
Talk is cheap and action is stronger than words. If I would have been in that classroom when he came in guns blazing my first thought would have been through a window or behind something that bullets can't go through.
Self preservation is your 2nd strongest instinct. I better stop but talk is cheap.

Cosmoline
April 19, 2007, 08:15 PM
Look, people. There is no fighting option here. Charing boldly at the threat is not the product of courage, but insanity. And I can pretty much guarantee if the bodies were hitting the floor you'd be singing a different tune. This waving of private parts and stern keyboard pronouncements about how the manhood of the nation has sunk are more disgusting than the rants of the murderer. I think some of you are actually trying to use the massacre to make some bizarre political points about how the nation has become too "feminine."

It's been shown repeatedly that a person can close the ten yards from a gunman in the time it takes the gunman to get the gun up.

Not if he's already up and shooting, which he most certainly would be. You charge, you get shot. FIREARMS. Remember them? You either have one at the gun fight, or you don't go to the fricking fight.

IF YOU ARE NOT DEATHLY AFRAID OF THE BUSINESS END OF A FIREARM, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!

Cowering isn't the answer, but it will work for a start. If the shooter is moving towards you and your cover will not hold, bolt for the nearest window and go for a little trip. It's harder to hit a moving target.

If that "brown bear" was after my loved ones I would rush it buck nekkid with nothing but a broken fingernail.

And guess what--a determined predator doesn't respond to bluff charges. Either two or four legged. He'll just remove your arms. That's the real world.

Soybomb
April 19, 2007, 08:32 PM
I don't think we have enough knowledge of what actually happened in each room yet to call anyone a coward. It doesn't take a big man to call the slaughtered helpless names, I think we should know the facts before even thinking of doing so.

I've so far seen reports of 2 people confronting him, I suspect there is alot more we don't know.

ElZorro
April 19, 2007, 08:37 PM
summary, IF you restrict your sample space to the academic community, I rabidly deny its applicability within the general populace.

Being on the leading edge of the "baby boomers" (born 1938), I find that, among my generation, we are predominantly of the "defend the farm" mindset. We are also (with the proper indoctrination into the actual text of the Constitution) predominantly Constitutionalists. Some may be initially ignorant, but not unteachable.

And so, I will agree with your summation, if restricted to the academicians, but not as a generality.

As to the "rush the gunman" versus, "cover your ass" disagreements, I would not suggest what anyone else should do, but damned if I die with my hands covering my eyes.

Shoot me in the face, MF, but you'll not shoot me in the back.

ElZorro

Joe Demko
April 19, 2007, 08:45 PM
Yeah, I've pretty well had it with the phallus-waving rants about the "pussification of America" and "they should have rushed him" too. I've mentioned The Naked Ape in other threads, but let's just leave that aside and glance at history, shall we? Genocide is one of history's recurring themes. People slaughtered in great numbers by an armed minority. People herded into camps and disposed of. People literally digging their own graves before being liquidated. This isn't new. This is common throughout all of recorded history. When confronted with violence, especially armed violence, people often just shut down. Why do you think the military has to train people to fight?
For the sake of decorum, your personal dignity, and not looking like all you know is what you read in Mack Bolan novels...just drop it. Go to bed at night feeling secure in the certainty that you, personally are different, if you like...but drop it.

jad0110
April 19, 2007, 09:05 PM
ArmedBear,

You have my deepest condolences for the loss of you son. I have a little boy who is about to turn 6 months. I love him more than anything. He is the one who got me up off my butt to get my CCW. I am his body gaurd whenever I am with him.

I cannot begin to fathom what you are going through. You and your son are in my prayers.

----

On a lighter note, Hawk, I think I found my new sig line. Great quotes!

ElZorro
April 19, 2007, 09:12 PM
in WWII? They may have lost ultimately, but they didn't go down with their hands over their eyes.

Genocide? Make a better case for it than Poland, 1943. Die without fighting back? Tell that to the members of יידישע קאמף ארגאניזאציע or "ZOB" to you, who died fighting the inevitable.

Fighting the inevitable is either ignorant suicide (to you, apparently) or a defiance of the perpetrators. Either way, you may die, but on your feet or on your knees DOES make a difference.

ElZorro

BigG
April 19, 2007, 09:16 PM
The testosterone is flying a little thick here, I can guarantee you that the majority of people will not fight. It's just not in them. Now, you are more properly known as a HERO - do you know how few of them there really are? Not only that, they never know if they are until the moment of truth arrives. Of course, everybody on this board is a HERO, we've all been tested and we're special. About 80% of real people (or more) are not, though.

Joe Demko
April 19, 2007, 09:16 PM
Compare the handful who fought in Warsaw to the millions who did not elsewhere. Exactly one camp, Sobibor, had an inmate uprising; the attack on the guards was done by a comparative handful of prisoners, most only made for the gates. There are a few people who are wired for violence. Depending on the way the fits in with the rest of their personality, it can produce heroes or murderers.

jfh
April 19, 2007, 09:25 PM
summary, IF you restrict your sample space to the academic community, I rabidly deny its applicability within the general populace.


Rabid or otherwise (VBG), what I am implying is that educators of that (antiviolence) mindset have held sway over our children for the last one-plus generations. IMO, (formal) education has been the predominant source for acculturization for at least the last twenty-five years.

I realize that is not necessarily true in all parts of the country. But, I do think that these implicit antiviolence values are now being challenged. What we--people like you and I, before the baby boomers--recognize as core values are now being identified as 'common sense' again. Dominant among this common sense reassertion is the inherent right to self-defense.

I remember being moved by the slogan "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" about 1966. I was mightily impressed by the crowd bonhomie of Woodstock 1969--I was there. With maturity, however, came a realization that certain ideals simply were not based in reality--and that includes the a priori assumptions built into gun control.

But, to return to the point--I really do think that succeeding generations will move away from anti-violence truisms. I never would have believed the French students promoted rebellion in the 1968 riots and then promoted the status quo in 2006. Here in the US, the pendulum swings again.

Derek Zeanah
April 19, 2007, 09:34 PM
<sigh>

Look, I'd like to think that in that situation, without even a knife, I'd grab a couple of books, hold them in front of my face, and charge, hoping to live long enough to take the guy's eyes out. That'd be an honorable death, I suppose, but I don't know that I'd think that quickly when trying to determine whether this is a joke I'm about to blind someone over.

If I did, it wouldn't be because I was better than my classmates, but because my background would have allowed me to be: I made it through jump school, have some martial arts training, put in a couple years of infantry, came to grips with my death a long time ago, and feel like I'm on reasonably good terms with my wife, parents and God.

Well, that, and because I'm a bit hefty now which I understand reduces penetration, which might give me a few more seconds. :p That doesn't mean someone who wouldn't/couldn't is less of a person. Remember these are 18-21 year olds we're dealing with -- most see themselves as immortal still, and haven't come to grips that someday they may need to act within seconds or die.

Derek Zeanah
April 19, 2007, 09:44 PM
Just as a follow-up: I think the world of my wife. She's saved hundreds of children's lives, and I think she's a better person than I am.

No way would she have lived through this though. She would have faced it directly, but I don't know if she can even throw a punch.

And I don't look down on her for that.

longeyes
April 19, 2007, 09:44 PM
Give every student a removable Kevlar desk cover.

AaronE
April 19, 2007, 09:54 PM
Cosmoline.
Look, people. There is no fighting option here. Charing boldly at the threat is not the product of courage, but insanity. And I can pretty much guarantee if the bodies were hitting the floor you'd be singing a different tune. This waving of private parts and stern keyboard pronouncements about how the manhood of the nation has sunk are more disgusting than the rants of the murderer. I think some of you are actually trying to use the massacre to make some bizarre political points about how the nation has become too "feminine."

BT, DT, through the flames...still here to tell the tale. Different folks react in different manners. I've already got the answer for me.

Yours and others mileage may vary.

Aaron

Cosmoline
April 19, 2007, 10:17 PM
, I'd like to think that in that situation, without even a knife, I'd grab a couple of books, hold them in front of my face, and charge, hoping to live long enough to take the guy's eyes out.

Courage has nothing to do with it. The lesson is extremely simple--NEVER go to a gun fight without a gun!! To take on an armed, murderous foe with a text book in front of your face is the height of stupidity. What the devil do you think will happen? These guys aren't screwing around. You'd be better off using your jump school traning to hit the ground off the second or third floor. What do you think he's going to do while you try to poke his eyes like some angry todler? SHOOT YOU!! And then you'll be dead or dying, and so much for your courage.

Do you people even bother to study history? Have you forgotten what happened to all those brave men who charged the trenches? Blind courage in the face of firearms is insanity. It accomplishes nothing.

The trick is to never let yourself get disarmed to begin with. Have a firearm, and have another firearm. And another one. Every layer of your life should have a firearm ready to go. Shotgun in home. Rifle in truck. Handgun on belt. Deep conceal in KL Null. Always another firearm. Because even a small firearm can allow you to turn the tables. It's a fighting chance. Running with a book over your face in hopes of poking someone's eyes out is NOT a fighting chance. Unless you disarm him by making him laugh so much he falls over.

Zoogster
April 19, 2007, 10:31 PM
People are rarely truly disarmed from weapons unless they are in an enviroment that intentionaly does so. In college there is likely students with tools for shop or another class where they make something or do a trade. There is heavy yet small desks that would surely be discouraging to have come crashing down on your head as you enter a doorway. There is metal objects, things made out of metal that can be broken apart taken apart etc. There is legs of tables or desks. A strong guy can quickly break off numerous deadly weapons from any number of normal objects. The gunman left and came back to many of the classes. Meaning they had ample time to become aware and then act, it wasn't all immediate.

Only in a very unfree strictly controlled enviroment is the objects within the enviroment likely to be unsuitable as weapons. I personaly know people that take classes and carry art supplies including large hammers, cutting tools and various other very lethal items which they have in a nice pretty carrying bags, backpacks etc while in other classes. The problem is these people likely wouldn't think of them as weapons, as so when somethign serious happened and thier forebrain constricted and they go into a flight or fight mode with adrenaline pumping they probably would not immediately be armed either. That is part of the problem. But the availability to items to use as weapons is not. However still better is a few individuals who have chosen to be armed with firearms that stop such incidents more effectively.

Derek Zeanah
April 19, 2007, 10:32 PM
Courage has nothing to do with it. The lesson is extremely simple--NEVER go to a gun fight without a gun!! To take on an armed, murderous foe with a text book in front of your face is the height of stupidity. What the hell do you think will happen? You'd be better off using your jump school traning to hit the ground off the second or third floor. What do you think he's going to do while you try to poke his eyes like some angry todler? SHOOT YOU!! For the love of Pete! Where do you come up with this garbage?Cosmoline, sometimes you're faced with a high degree of certainty that you're going to die. Sometimes you face a situation where doing what you need to do to live isn't something you're willing to live with. Sometimes "doing the right thing" isn't the same thing as "living to procreate."

Scenario: you're sitting in class with 26 other people, on the 3nd floor, and you hear two shots. You look around and 2 folks are dead, you're 15 feet away from the shooter who's at the back of the classroom, and he's targeting his next victim. You're lucky and immediately recognize what's happening, curse yourself for leaving your weapons back in your dorm room, and you have 1.2 seconds to make a decision. Most of the folks remaining in the classroom are female, 18-20 (assume like me you're closer to 40 than 20), and are in shock.

Your options, it seems to me, are 3: Freeze, or try to seek cover. Figure this is your default, and you have a 1% chance of living.
Run screaming to the window and hope you can hit it with enough velocity to break it instead of bouncing back, and retain enough control to perform a PLF and just break ankles and legs instead of your neck. Figure a 22% chance to do so.
Go banzai while he's focusing on his front sight which is on someone else's head, and hope you can avoid a headshot so you'll be able to disable the shooter. Figure 18% chance of doing so, and a 5% chance to live if you pull it off.You'd choose option 2. If I chose option 2 and knew that another 20 people died -- people who are truly defenseless -- I'd regret that for the rest of my life, and would be shamed in front of the world when my story got out.

I know what my choice there would be. I don't claim that it's the smartest choice, but it's the one I would be proudest of. Call me a fool if that's how it looks to you, but that's how it looks to me. I won't even state that I know I could make this choice -- 10 seconds deliberation looks like it seals your fate, anyway, but that's how it looks from here, sitting in my computer chair.

Cosmoline
April 19, 2007, 10:34 PM
Zoogster: Given some time and planning, sure. But in most cases that time will be better spent finding a way out.

Derek Zeanah: Where are you pulling those percentages from? Listening to the survivors from the latest shooting, most of them took cover or ran. So where are you getting a 1% chance of survival for that? The ones who jumped have fared pretty well, too. Haven't heard from any of the ones who challenged the shooter. Never heard from the VP at Bethel High either. Or the brave souls at Luby's who charged that gunman.

I'm not advocating passively waiting for death. If it comes to that point, attack is the only viable option left. But charging, unarmed, towards a gunman as some sort of first response, is crazy.

silliman89
April 19, 2007, 10:53 PM
I'm the first to agree that anyone who wasn't there is just a keyboard commando. And beating your chest like an orangutan really just makes you look silly (and hurts your chest after a while). But there are a couple of points.

First off, this didn't happen all that fast. The whacko shot people in four classrooms. He stopped to chain the door and reload. A little old man had time to push his desk across the room and in front of the door. Of course some would say that makes him an idiot because he didn't have a gun of his own.

Jumping out the window was certainly the best option for survival. But if there was a crowd in front of the window, then it's not so good. I wasn't there. I don't know. I read a quote from a guy who was there though, that no one after him made it out the window. They were all shot trying to get through.

I don't think Derek's idea of holding books was so bad. I can hold 6 inches of books in my hands. Bigger guys may be able to hold more. With my head down, I think the books would cover my head and upper torso. Would 6" of book stop a 9mm? I don't know. Would a 9mm to the shoulder, legs or lower torso knock me down? I don't know. I don't see where the idea deserves to be made fun of though.

That said, I wouldn't have thought of it. If there was a crowd at the windows, I personally think I would have flattened myself against the wall next to the door. If he stood in the hall and shot into the classroom, then he wouldn't see me. If he came through the door, then I think I might have a chance to grab the gun. I think it's worth trying.

If I were sitting next to an open window that day, I'd have been out it and wouldn't have looked back. I wouldn't have said "you women and children flee to safety, while we men sell our lives dearly to buy you time". But then again I don't think anyone else was saying that either.

Derek Zeanah
April 19, 2007, 11:02 PM
Derek Zeanah: Where are you pulling those percentages from? Listening to the survivors from the latest shooting, most of them took cover or ran. So where are you getting a 1% chance of survival for that? Pulled 'em outta my butt? Gives us something to agree on, so we can get on with the rest of the discussion. I don't know who took cover and ran. I don't know how this played out, as all the coverage I've seen was referenced here. What I know is dude decided to chain the academic building shut and start shooting.

This thread, however, is about "cowardice" in those who didn't step up and do something. I posted that, while I would like to think I'd do something other than stand (or cower) and die if dealt a losing hand, I don't know how I'd do, and there's no fault with those who "failed" this "test."

You said, essentially "you're a fool of you don't take the choice that maximizes your survival chance." I said "I don't necessarily agree," and quickly drafted a scenario that brings in the pertinent facts of this case, and offers my point of view in a way that I thought would illustrate my point.

I'm not advocating passively waiting for death. If it comes to that point, attack is the only viable option left. But charging, unarmed, towards a gunman as some sort of first response, is crazy.Actually, I believe you were advocating retreat if it offered any possibility of survival.

That's how I read it at least.

SaintofKillers
April 19, 2007, 11:06 PM
Cosmoline,

I would agree that charging the shooter would be crazy if not suicide but your option is death at this point anyways so what difference would it make?

I would hope to think that other people in the room would be throwing books, pencils, erasers, chairs and anything else that could be lifted off the floor to distract the shooter from drawing a bead.

The shooter came in the room with the idea of killing everyone and in order for him to do so he had to maintain some degree of control of the room. Cowering behind the desk is giving him total control.

Throwing everything at him including the kitchen sink does not. He is then dealing with chaos which IMO would make his original intent at least more difficult and give some a chance at life.

Air,Land&Sea
April 19, 2007, 11:11 PM
In all fairness, it happened very fast and furious with many victims not even knowing what hit them. On a positive, though, at least no one called anyone a nappy-headed ho.

Tokugawa
April 19, 2007, 11:22 PM
First of all- Armedbear, Eliphalet, my sincere condolences. Many years ago I lost a son and daughter. The pain will in time subside but never go away. It is part of us.
Does anyone know exactly why the murderer stopped? Did he run out of ammo? was he shot by police?

Speed or coordination of effort might do the trick with a few seconds to
plan. Personally, I think anything would be better than laying curled in a ball waiting to be shot.
It sure wouldn't be a first choice, but the thing that makes hero's is often a lack of options.

silliman89
April 19, 2007, 11:24 PM
When you're in shock, everything seems fast and furious. In actual fact this went on and on and on until the police finally got there and the guy turned his gun on himself.

Granted, the police were already on campus, but someone had to make the call to 911. Dispatch had to get on the radio. Police had to figure out where Norris Hall was. Considerable time went by.

Cosmoline
April 19, 2007, 11:26 PM
Actually, I believe you were advocating retreat if it offered any possibility of survival.

Up to a point. I mean, if the man has cornered you and you have no cover, fighting back is the only real option, however hopeless. But your first goal upon hearing the gunfire must be to find cover for the immediate future and secure an escapre route. Run away, absolutely. Unless you have the means to fight back. And against a firearm--that means at least another firearm.

ajl2121
April 19, 2007, 11:35 PM
The BIG point that many people are missing here is that the students who hid in an attempt to preserve their own lives did not know whether or not Cho would have the chance to kill 100% of the students in their class. It was noted that he shot in multiple classrooms and not just a single one. What I am getting at is that, the students who many claim to be "cowards" hid thinking that they might survive the attack (which obviously more students than not in Norris Hall survived). If it were a situation where every student was 100% certain that they will die, then I would assume that several will attempt a physical confrontation. I for one think that playing "possum" in this situation would be the wisest thing to do. However, if I were fairly certain that death will occur unless drastic measures are taken, I would use a dead person as shield while I rush the attacker.

Air,Land&Sea
April 19, 2007, 11:41 PM
The bottom line is that everyone was relatively helpless thanks to gun-free-safe-zones. Gun control is now not only an infringement, but it's become rather dangerous. Gun-free-safe-zones are anything but.:mad: :mad: :mad:

farmallmta
April 19, 2007, 11:57 PM
That kind of common sense and a few grand will buy you a coffin. Forget about it. Even if some of you make it, you're going to have a heck of a time getting the guns away, let alone restraining him. The loon will have the strength of three men. The only hope is a sneak attack using the maximum possible force against his cranium and neck to try to kill him quickly. If you have a knife or heavy club, maybe. But totally unarmed? It's going to be damn near impossible to pull off. You'll save many more lives securing a room and getting an evac route going out the window, helping folks down.



And remember, all they had to deal with were box cutters. Going against firearms is a completely different animal.
Jimmy Hoffa was confronted by an attacker in court who produced a gun. Jimmy rushed the guy and decked him, then took the gun away and handed it to a bailiff who stood rooted in fear during the whole lightning fast episode.

When asked about his actions, Hoffa, a notorious brawler, replied, "a guy pulls a knife, run away. He pulls a gun, you got to rush him to startle his aim, then deck him to keep him from shooting. There's no safer way with either."

I think Jimmy had the right answer.

Sure, if you can be out of the line of fire and escape without leaving others to suffer death or wounding, try to vacate the area. But if you're penned in and others will suffer, ACT FAST AND HARD.

I'm not trying to be heroic here, or Monday morning quarterbacking. It's just an analysis of the options and trying to anticipate what each of us should TRY to do.

fast eddie
April 20, 2007, 12:00 AM
This discussion is healthy because we now have the opportunity to contemplate what we might do in a similar situation; if the VT victims had ever pondered these questions perhaps fewer would have died.

gc70
April 20, 2007, 12:02 AM
My disappointment is not that more students failed to fight back, but that more of them did not run for their life.

I was amazed by one VT student's description of the gunman entering a classroom with about twenty students and methodically killing three-fourths of them... as they all cowered waiting for the end. Forget about heroism; I would have expected the natural sense of self-preservation to have caused a rush for the exits after the first two or three people were shot.

toivo
April 20, 2007, 12:10 AM
I have to admit that I wondered out loud right after it happened how a man armed with only handguns could kill so many when surrounded by hundreds of people. But I wasn't there. It's one thing if someone walks in a room with no escape route and starts executing people; then you might say "Hell with it, I've got nothing to lose." But the eyewitnesses described it more like he'd pop into a room, shoot a few people, leave, and then repeat the same thing down the hall. Let's say you're one of those still left alive when he exits the room. Are you going to follow him? Unarmed?

This all reminds me of the New York auxiliary cops who got shot last month. You can't blame them for trying, but it didn't work. Sometimes there's no right answer.

Zoogster
April 20, 2007, 12:14 AM
That is just the point, most will seek every possible route besides confrontation up to and past the point it happens. Some are not killed and others are. 50+ people were shot.

I think that is the entire point being made is that everyone unless facing certain obsolute death will refrain from conflict as long as it increases thier own personal survival. Well I got news for you: you will almost never be certain that confrontation is necessary. Very rarely will you get a phone call from a relative that says 2 planes just were flown into a building by Islamic people who took over the plane and you know the same type of people just took over your own plane. No usualy that phone call never happens, just like it didn't for the first planes.

There will always be options other than confrontation. However when the gunman is not facing you or is vulnerable for a second, but you tell yourself attacking may very well get you killed and you try to hide, but you are later confronted directly head on and he is not as vulnerable it will have been a failed gamble. If that never happens and he merely kills others and you successfuly avoid confrontation yourself, well maybe that is a victory for you. The moment presents itself quickly, and if your not prepared he will have turned around or noticed you or perhaps killed others while you were trying to get the courage or decide. I agree this nation is filled with cowards. If you did successfuly grab the guy and pin him down but were in an active wrestling match I can honestly tell you that most would still not take the at that point far lower risk to themselves to help you prevail but instead leave you to wrestle, potential losing after a good effort and dying. I have seen similar things in robberies to know just such a thing happens often. Almost assured success if someone else had just stepped in, but nobody does, or does so in such a tentative insecure way as to not help quickly enough. Cowards for sure. But such is the world we live in. In my opinion we all must die eventualy anyways. If you die saving or trying to save others there is no shame in it. If you live even better. All the cowardice and self preservation in the world won't stop you from dying an old man or in some random traffic accident or from cancer or diesease etc. Your still going to die, stop being so afraid of it and just do the right thing in life.

It is easy to say from a computer and far harder to practice such a willingness to make a difference in life when the unexpected situation presents itself, but don't be so inclined to always avoid confrontation when others are being victimized. That does not mean make an illogical decision, running at him screaming would still be stupid. But using the best resources at hand with the best timing possible.

I repeat there will almost always seem to be other options than confrontation even when the time of those being the best options has passed. Nobody is ever going to say "Hey your going to surely die anyways you might as well". There will always be a chance that by doing nothing and letting others suffer you will survive and you won't have those percentages on hand to calculate. If the people in the final flight on 9/11 had arrived to thier destination before the other planes or not been so far behind that people could get phone calls to know they would surely die, they would have likely just sat there like good little missiles too. You don't usualy know your going to die anyways until you do, and the very fact that is the primary concern shows cowardism itself wich was the topic of the article.

davec
April 20, 2007, 12:18 AM
Whenever a cop blows somebody away, we're barraged with "we weren't there" "we don't know how it went down" "you cant judge if you weren't in his shoes" "there's the medas side of teh story, the cops side of the story, the bad guys side of the story, and the truth" blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda.

A psycho guns down innocent people and everybody and their mother chimes in what *they* would of done, and casts dispersions and seers at the actions of the people who were in fact starting death in the face, with no real good idea as to the options that may or may not have been available to them.

Moral of the story, don't second guess the actions of the 5-0, but have at it with murder victims.

Jamie C.
April 20, 2007, 12:23 AM
I'm not going to get into this pissing match, for the simple reason I wasn't there, and don't have any idea of exactly what happened. There's not even any point is saying what I hope i would have done, or what i might have done.

Still, I'm almost waiting for somebody to start in with the "it was only a 9mm... surely somebody could have taken a few of those and still disarmed him before they died. It wasn't a .45 after all".

Fact is, this incident shows what having a gun.. any gun, even a .22... and the element of surprise, is really capable of.

It also shows what the true value of signs, laws, and the police are, when it comes to staying alive.

It would be nice if enough people actually learned these lessons this time... all of them... and we never have to have them repeated for us again.




J.C.

Cosmoline
April 20, 2007, 12:37 AM
It also shows what the true value of signs, laws, and the police are, when it comes to staying alive.

Exactly. Sometimes the smartest thing you can do is break the law.

Malone LaVeigh
April 20, 2007, 12:48 AM
Someone is always eager to make political hay out of any tragedy. I think the OP is the height of political correctness.

dadman
April 20, 2007, 09:55 PM
We're humans, not apes.
God made us with a free will and a mind to think with.

From a previously posted Mark Steyn link at THR:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=
As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

http://shaidle.blogmatrix.com/:entry:shaidle-2007-04-17-0010

Turkey Creek
April 20, 2007, 10:34 PM
We're all hard wired to "Fight or Flight"- I think the action to do either has to happen automatically at once- The longer a dangerous situation goes on the more time the brain has to override the internal automatic system to produce inertia resulting so often in the third "F" (freezing)

wjustinen
April 21, 2007, 02:26 AM
"There are worse things than being shot." Jeff Cooper

If you enjoyed reading about "Cho, narcississm and a nation of cowards." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!