ATL:"Calls for armed citizenry rely on belief in superhero fantasies"

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

K-Romulus

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
1,146
Location
Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
I wasn't sure where to put this, but figured "general" was as good as any. It is good for a laugh, or angry email. I was going to ignore it, but thought others might want to see how low the anti-CCW crowd is going with their hysterics.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.tucker23apr23,1,5716869.story

Calls for armed citizenry rely on belief in superhero fantasies

Originally published April 23, 2007
ATLANTA // Kids love superheroes because they're invincible, brave, all-powerful. Children can suspend disbelief to look up in the sky for Superman or around the corner for Wonder Woman. Teenagers are enamored of a TV series called Heroes, which revolves around young people with - you guessed it - superpowers.

But it's more than a little disconcerting to hear that so many adults also believe in superheroes. They must. Why else would they insist that the best way to prevent carnage of the sort that occurred last week at Virginia Tech is to put guns into every available hand? They're indulging their childhood fantasies, remembering the movies in which the Caped Crusader or John Wayne instantly dispatched the bad guy.

In real life, police officers - trained to fire in the heat of battle - hit their intended targets only about 40 percent of the time, according to University of South Carolina criminologist Geoffrey Alpert, an expert in police shootings. And we all know about wartime "friendly fire" tragedies, when well-trained soldiers accidentally kill their own.

Yet conservative commentators have been in high dudgeon for days, suggesting that students with guns could have guaranteed a Hollywood ending in which an unflappable sharpshooter would have felled Cho Seung-Hui with a quick head shot. Michelle Malkin was among those who denounced a Virginia law that excludes college campuses from areas where concealed weapons are permitted.

"What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon? ... It darned well isn't too early for me to raise questions about how the unrepentant anti-gun lobbying of college officials may have put students at risk," she said.

That utterly preposterous argument comes straight from the National Rifle Association. The gun lobby now peddles an insane policy of making firearms as ubiquitous as cell phones.

The NRA has supported measures that would prevent employers from banning firearms in vehicles in their parking lots. Despite police opposition, it has pushed policies that would allow motorists to tuck firearms under the seat of their car. It has lobbied against closing the gun-show loophole, which allows private gun sales without a background check. No responsible gun owner should accept the NRA's irrational positions.

My father certainly would not have. An avid hunter and veteran of combat in Korea, my father owned shotguns, rifles and a handgun. Yet he was fanatical about gun safety.

When I moved to Atlanta just out of college, I told him I was going to buy a handgun. He strongly disapproved, believing I'd be more likely to get injured with my own gun than fend off an attacker with it.

"You don't need a gun," he said. "You need to stay out of dangerous places." I took his advice.

His concerns are borne out by the FBI's statistics about gun crimes. In 2005, 8,890 people were murdered with firearms. Guns were also used in 142,471 cases of robbery and 151,118 cases of aggravated assault. By contrast, there were only 143 cases of justifiable homicide by civilians using a firearm.

If dozens of Virginia Tech students had been armed, "Lord knows what a disaster we would have had," Mr. Alpert said.

"If they had had a Jack Bauer, maybe so. But the world isn't composed of Jack Bauers," he noted.

So all those armchair heroes - all those firearm fanatics who claim everything would be different if they'd been in one of those classrooms with a gun - should don their red capes and take a leap.

Cynthia Tucker is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Her column appears Mondays in The Sun. Her e-mail is [email protected].
Click to expand...
 
Was Virginia Tech a dangerous place? If so, then shouldn't people stay away from it?

It seems Ms. Tucker is infected with Superhero Syndrome. She believes she is invisible and madmen will not harm her if she wishes no harm to them.

So, Ms. Tucker, we are to do what? Call the police? The police are merely men with guns. Perhaps we should do the politically correct thing and roll over and die and thus we do not discriminate against madmen?
 
I will repeat myself: I personally know of four instances
where women defended themselves against attackers
or threats--home invader, burglar, estranged spouse,
etc--without being "superheroes" just women capable of
defending themselves against larger threats or larger
numbers because they had a gun. These were not
fantasies. Armed citizens are capable of protecting
themselves and others.

Fantasy is the idea that barring state-licensed concealed
handgun carriers from even having a gun on campus
had any influence on the behavior of a psychopath.
The "gun free zone" at Virginia Tech was not only a
fantasy but a dangerous delusion. These psychos attack
in "gun free zones" for a reason: they are guaranteed
no one can stop them until their suicide-by-cop scenario
is played out.
 
His concerns are borne out by the FBI's statistics about gun crimes. In 2005, 8,890 people were murdered with firearms. Guns were also used in 142,471 cases of robbery and 151,118 cases of aggravated assault. By contrast, there were only 143 cases of justifiable homicide by civilians using a firearm.
Click to expand...

The first number would be a LOT lower if the third number was a LOT higher.
This really burns me up! :banghead: :fire:
 
My response to Tucker. This was also sent to the Baltimore Sun:

Dear Ms.Tucker,

I read your editorial “Calls for armed citizenry rely on belief in superhero fantasies” on the Baltimore Sunpaper web site.



Why on earth would you think someone carrying a concealed handgun would have “Super Hero” fantasies? The intent would be to provide a means of protection, not go after the “bad guy”. Please do not think we’re bringing any fantasies into this very serious matter.



This is a posting I put on an internet forum to seriously discuss CCW on campus:



First, we cannot depend upon a security guard at a school or law enforcement to protect anyone. The courts have even held that the duty of the police is to enforce laws, not protect people (it just happens that many of those laws have the intent (successfully or unsuccessfully) to protect people.



If CCW is allowed at schools by adult students and school faculty, there would have to be some considerations:



1) How is the weapon to be secured when not carried? My opinion would be those one gun safes. The student and faculty would have to be instructed that if a gun is lost or stolen through neglect, they would be expelled or discharged. I'm not trying to be a hard nose, but the CCW carriers have to realize the seriousness of carrying a CCW. Dorm rooms aren't like one's home. They're a relatively public place. Obviously, anyone who steals a gun would be expelled and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



2) Anyone brandishing without purpose (playing cowboys and Indians) would be subject to loss of CCW permit and expulsion.



3) Should there be an incident, the CCW carriers would have to stay where they are. That means they are not to look for an assailant. There would be too great a risk of innocents shooting each other or being shot by law enforcement if they're roaming the halls. CCW carriers would have to realize the weapons are for self defense, not trying to be a hero.



4) All CCW carriers would have to be registered at school security (I'm discussing students and faculty, not a parent visiting or picking up their child). This would be so the cops can know where the CCW carriers are most likely to be during an incident (reducing the possibility of accidentals shootings).



5) All CCW carriers would have to go through an orientation explaining the rules listed above. It would have to be emphasized that "youthful indiscretions" would not be an excuse. Again, not trying to be a hard nose, but we do have to cull out those people who would not take carrying a weapon seriously.



This isn't perfect by far. I'm sure there would be other constraints or safety issues to discuss. However, it would be a beginning for safe carry at school...maybe add an immunity for the school if a CCW carrier injures an innocent.



It's unfortunate that something like this even has to be discussed, but we live in a violent world. I don't see it getting any less violent. And gun banning policies have proven to be a failure twice in the last year (VA Tech and the Amish School shooting in PA).





Although I’ve had a concealed carry permit for about 20 years, I do realize carry on campus could be difficult…but not impossible. There would be issues to deal with, some of which I listed above, with possible solutions.



If you want to be part of the debate on this subject, I suggest you refrain from rather insulting comments, editorials and stereotyping. If you cannot refrain from such behavior, please leave the debate to people who can discuss this rationally…from both sides.



I have cc’d this to the Baltimore Sun since that’s where I read it. The phone number is for them to contact me, if so desired. I would prefer any communication be via e-mail, however.
 
If dozens of Virginia Tech students had been armed, "Lord knows what a disaster we would have had," Mr. Alpert said.
Click to expand...

What? Like, MORE people would have been lined up and shot, locked in with chains. Typical stuff here, but she deserves an email. NOT hate mail, short, sweet, simple, one line arguments with facts and a nice temperament. Take the high road for sure, but do send her a note, later......not this week even, save her email, next month, the month after, next year, with occasional blurbs of successful stories of SUPERHEROES.:banghead:

Of course, I guess this country was founded by superheroes, people with guns resisting foreign control. So, then, we are the descendents of superheroes ideologically if not genetically.
Saw blood diamonds this weekend, now there is some sad stuff.....guns in the hands of evil people. All of whom are criminals and are breaking the, well, law I suppose.

ST
 
Trying to equate police or military action with that of civilian defense actions ... is just stupid.

Police chase crooks ~1-100m engagement.
Military act in various operational groups ~1-10,000+m engagement.
Civilian defense is usually much closer ~1-15m engagement.


It does not take superhero-like abilities to defend yourself with a firearm in a civilian SD scenario.
 
My father certainly would not have. An avid hunter and veteran of combat in Korea, my father owned shotguns, rifles and a handgun. Yet he was fanatical about gun safety.
Click to expand...

I like the fact that the author seems to think that gun ownership and being fanatical about gun safety apply only to her father, who clearly doesn't think his daughter is responsible enough to carry a gun.

In real life, police officers - trained to fire in the heat of battle
Click to expand...

Any LEOs care to comment on that statement? Our only "training to fire in the heat of combat" consisted of simunitions drills, where
a) you know you aren't going to die
b) there is very little noise
c) did I mention you know for a fact that you aren't going to die?
 
I’ve heard this argument many times since the VT shooting, about how if students were armed they would “run to scene” of the shooting and start firing upon all of the other students with guns. The question I have raised to some of these people, and have still not received an answer. Is how many incidents have occurred of multiple CHL holders shooting each other by accident? Currently there are 37 shall issue states and probably millions of CHL holders, so where are all these incidents of them accidentally shooting each other while trying to be a “super hero”. The fact is that CHL or not, most people wouldn’t have run towards the shooting. The more likely scenario would have been for one of the people directly in the vicinity of the shooting to fight back with their CCW.
 
I just recently signed a new rental contract, my land lord is a local PD officer. We got on the subject of target shooting and when I mentioned I was Pres. of the MTU club and he's more than welcome to come down, he mentioned that he had shot there and felt intimidated in the fact that the civilian shooters were better able to shoot under stress than he was. I reiterated that we're all friendly down at the range and like everything, it takes practice. I don't buy the "police shoot better under stress" line of bull.
 
hit their intended targets only about 40 percent of the time
Click to expand...

Maybe that is because many only hit the ranges for the necessary qualifications? As opposed to one of us, who goes to the range far more frequently.
 
I don't buy the "police shoot better under stress" line of bull.
Click to expand...

As well you should not.
I shoot IDPA with a couple of active police officers (and some former), they say that 80%+ of the rank and file officers only fire their weapon once a year when they need to qualify, and a lot of them do not qualify on the first try.
These guys (the ones that shooting IDPA) practice, but from what they say, I would say most of the folks here are more qualified and proficient with their weapons than most police. Having said that, most police are much more trained to handle the stress of the circumstances, but not necessarily shooting under that stress.
That whole line of reasoning about only the police and military should have firearms as they are the only ones who are qualified to use them, is crap.
When the police are called to a scene like that, they do not know who the shooter is, who the bad guy is. A CCW on the scene is less likely to shoot the wrong person, and they KNOW who the bad guy is.
The whole thing about thousands of CCWs flying in from the around the state to turn the entire scene into the "Shootout at the OK Corral" is stupid. The number of folks that are responsible enough and dedicated enough to carry is always going to be small. All we ask it to respect our right.
 
Cynthia Tucker is a notorious uber-lieberal who has a longstanding antigun reputation. A week or two ago she had another antigun screed published. I sent her a letter regarding it -- which she has so far ignored, of course.
I would not give her any credulity. She deserves none.
 
My response sent to Ms. Tucker, The Baltimore Sun and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution(which should remove the word Constitution from it's name as it doesn't deserve it):
Ms. Tucker,

If I may, I will use your terminology to address your column.

In your fantasy-world, the police are superheroes that will rush to your aid and arrive in time to save you from any threat or danger.
In the real world the police are just people like the rest of us and most often only arrive after a crime has been committed.

In your fantasy world, all one has to do to stay safe is to stay out of dangerous places.
In the real world, as evidenced all too often, there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ public or private place.

In your fantasy world, only the police are capable of using firearms. The average citizen isn’t capable of safely and responsibly handling firearms.
In the real world many responsible, law-abiding citizens train and practice as much or more than the average police officer, and are as much or more accurate, safe and proficient.

Your statements and statistics are inaccurate and dishonest.
Any honest research shows that gun control does not work to stop these tragedies or keep people safe in their homes or in public.

Biased, hysterical and dishonest rhetoric does a disservice to us all, not just those trying to find solutions to a growing problem.

Sincerely,
Click to expand...
 
I agree with the conclusion about her father's objection to her being armed speaks volumes about her compentence. He doesn't sound like he has a fear of guns, so I can only guess the reservations he had about his daughter being armed must stem from a fear of her. Why else would a long time gun owner insist that his daughter not be armed in a city like Atlanta, unless he felt she was unfit to handle firearms?

Perhaps it was even her own "super hero" fantasies that made him nervous.
 
Another editorial column published in the Baltimore Sun the same day:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...apr23,0,2397510.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
In post-massacre gun debate, both sides wrong
Originally published April 23, 2007
CHICAGO // It used to be that a shocking act of gun violence would invariably elicit a chorus of demands for tighter gun control laws. How things have changed. Now an episode like that invariably elicits a chorus of demands for tighter gun control laws and a chorus of demands for looser gun control laws. What the reactions demonstrate is that no matter what happens, people are very good at finding confirmation for what they already think.

In this case, the first error is taking a freakishly horrible event as a basis for anything except mourning.

The carnage at Virginia Tech was as bad as gun crimes get, but it was also as rare as they get.

Seeing mass slaughter on a campus makes all of us feel at risk. But that's because we are focusing on the unusual and ignoring the usual. All the less-dramatic facts indicate that deadly violence is a diminishing danger.

Nationally, your chance of being a murder victim has plunged by 44 percent since 1991. University students, as a rule, have even less cause for worry. All the colleges in the country have some 17 million students, but in an average year, they suffer fewer than 20 on-campus homicides.

In the aftermath of the killing spree in Blacksburg, Va., the Violence Policy Center rushed to ascribe it to "the easy access to increasingly lethal firearms that make most killings possible." But when auto fatalities occur, we don't take them as evidence of the need to cut down on the number of people allowed to drive or on the horsepower of cars.

Guns, like many inventions, are potent tools that have valuable as well as destructive uses. Lately, though, they are being used less and less for bad purposes. The number of gun murders has dropped by 38 percent since 1993, and the rate of nonfatal gun crimes is one-third what it was then.

These weapons are not getting more lethal but less - because an increasing proportion are handguns, which are typically not as powerful as rifles and shotguns. In this case, the shooter used one of the least deadly firearms in existence, a .22-caliber pistol. Cho Seung-Hui's other pistol was a Glock 9 mm, an established weapon that is far from being the most powerful handgun around. "Increasingly lethal firearms" had nothing to do with this crime.

Some people who think the law should allow the carrying of concealed handguns (which I favor) make the mistake of seeing them as a cure-all. Virginia law allows licensed gun owners to carry weapons, but not on public university campuses. The thinking is that if students and faculty had the freedom to pack heat, someone could have stopped Mr. Cho in the act - or deterred him from even trying.

But would that have saved anyone? I put the question to Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. He agrees that an armed student or professor could well have succeeded in stopping the slaughter, but doubts one would have been present. "Most people wouldn't carry a gun to a classroom in daytime, because college campuses are very safe," he says. "It's a hassle to carry a gun."

All this says nothing about the effect on learning from lots of people sitting in classrooms with lethal ordnance at hand.

It may seem obvious that when an atrocity is committed with a gun, we should respond by revising our gun laws. In fact, what we know suggests that if there is a way to prevent mass killings, it will have to be found someplace else.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His column appears Mondays in The Sun. His e-mail is [email protected].
Click to expand...
 
But would that have saved anyone? I put the question to Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. He agrees that an armed student or professor could well have succeeded in stopping the slaughter, but doubts one would have been present. "Most people wouldn't carry a gun to a classroom in daytime, because college campuses are very safe," he says. "It's a hassle to carry a gun."

All this says nothing about the effect on learning from lots of people sitting in classrooms with lethal ordnance at hand.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph there is fairly reasonable. It is a hassle to carry a gun--it can be uncomfortable, it dictates clothing choice, and you need to make sure you have the proper equipment. And feeling safe is likely to lessen the odds that you'll carry. Whether that's a good idea is a different matter.

But the second statement is odd. I, for one, tend not to have any interruption in my learning or ability to pay attention to life just because there's a gun on my person. And if you never know it's there, how does it affect one's learning? A generalized, pervasive fear that somebody nearby might be armed is indicative of other problems, IMH(or not so H)O.
 
Yeah, it's much better to rely on the mercy of the BGs or hope that the police arrive in less than 5 seconds.
 
She is an uber liberal??? Makes me wonder if her dear old dad is a hunter, firearms owner and Korean war vet.

To not council his daughter on a gun purchase doesn't sound like the work of the above kind of father, but rather another uber elite liberal parent to his / her uber elite liberal daughter.

I don't understand their (liberals) conviction that GUNS are the Black Plauge... Indiscriminate killers and turn anyone who owns them (except her dear old Dad) into drunken hill billy redneck Jack Bauer wannabes...
 
Rhetorical question for Ms Tucker

I read Ms. Tucker's editorial and one from her colleague Jay Bookman (the AJC's resident chicken-dove).
From the chicken-dove:

"Apparently, these people harbor some ego-stroking adolescent fantasy in which they heroically step forward with weapon in hand to save the day, just like the guys in the movies do, and they bridle at any law that might block their fantasy from coming true."

So, my question for Ms Tucker is this; suppose there were some gun wielding psycho roaming the halls of the AJC shooting friends and fellow writers what would you rather have in your hand - a gun, or a piece of paper reminding the guy that this is a "gun free workplace". Would you rather have the chicken-dove holed up in your office with you or me with my .38 snubby and my decidedly non adolescent fantasies? These questions cannot be ignored because as a previous poster said - "sometimes danger comes to you."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Think they are regretting this??
Replies
1
Views
501
ServiceSoon
S
R
  • Locked
Virginia Tech made the murders on its campus possible
Replies
7
Views
1K
sansone
S
6
  • Locked
Jammed Gun in NOVA CC shooting
Replies
2
Views
485
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
U
  • Locked
Boortz re: Va Tech Shootings
Replies
6
Views
905
zoom6zoom
Z
F
  • Locked
Press 'ignore' terrorist stopped by armed student
Replies
2
Views
672
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top