Cho, narcississm and a nation of cowards.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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!
 
Joe D.; need I remind you of the Warsaw ghetto uprisings

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
<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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
, 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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: 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top