I move for a moratorium on "The VT students should have rushed the gunman" talk.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jlbraun

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
2,213
I move for a moratorium on this kind of "why didn't someone tackle him?!?" talk. People who are real bona fide hardasses (Secret Service presidential detail, Special Forces, IDF, Marines, etc.) train for DECADES and STILL say that it's very likely you're going to die if you have only your bare hands / impact weapons and rush someone with a gun from anything more than contact range. And that's people with TRAINING.

To even ask the question denigrates people for not rushing him by implication, and is armchair commandoing at it worst.

I am sure that some of the survivors were up all of last night AND all of the night before, head in their hands, saying "Why didn't I rush him? I was frozen. I should have done something!"

And you, armchair commando, are coming across the Internet saying "Yeah, dumbass. Why DIDN'T you do something? What's wrong with you? What are you, a wuss? Yeah, you might have died, but you could have saved lives! What's wrong with you?"

:scrutiny:

And the worst part of it is, that person is probably thinking that not only should they have rushed him, but that they should be *DEAD* right now, so that others may have lived. They've just taken survivor's guilt and folded it back on themselves tenfold, saying, I *should* be dead.

:cuss:

So. Let's stop this. I will say for my part that I was a bit guilty of this yesterday, and I'm sorry. From now on, I will simply say, "I hope that I would have acted with courage were I in their position."

And that's all the rest of you should say, too.

Rant off.
 
Agreed. Many of the threads on VT have gotten repetitive, sometimes in the negative and sometimes in the positive. It's important for us as individuals to think about what we'd have done/would do, but since I wasn't in the shoes of those there it's not my place to critique the strategies and tactics of the dead. Survivors will already be critiquing themselves plenty.
 
+100

I just want to :banghead: when I read those kind of comments. Thank you.
 
To even ask the question denigrates people for not rushing him by implication, and is armchair commandoing at it worst.

And it is also a slight to the slain and wounded that may actually have tried to do so.
 
No body knows what they would actually do in a situation like that until it happens. But doing nothing was a mistake in this case, and there is nothing wrong with learning from the mistakes of others.
 
I sorta mentioned something like this in one of the earlier threads. But my point was more along the lines of "I want to understand why nobody fought back " NOT "hey wimps, why didn't you fight back."

Big difference, but I can see how it's misinterpreted.

It'll be a few days before an accurate timeline is published and the stories get out. Maybe people did fight back and were cut down doing so. Maybe it all happened way too fast. Maybe this psycho organized his hit and move to avoid resistance (it sounds like he reloaded in the hallway and then reentered rooms).

Way too soon to tell. When the facts do come out: study, learn, train. That's all we can do. Oh and I forgot the last one: hope we never find out how we'd react.

jh
 
There is nothing wrong with learning from the mistakes of others.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with asking why the gunman was ABLE to execute so many people -- not shoot them running, but shoot them as they stood in line. The only known hero was 77. Presumably, some of the students, male and female in their late teens and early 20s, were much quicker and much stronger.

Are we teaching our young people the wrong things?

Is there something we need to change in our culture?

I'm not "blaming the victims." I want to know how we can stop creating victims.
 
I agree. It's tough to accurately second guess the situation within those walls.

However, I hope some people think about what they would do, or what they will teach their kids to do, in the event they find themselves in a situation where the aggressor is armed and the potential victims are not.

In other words, I've already been thinking about this. My young child won't be able to carry a gun for at least about 17 yrs, unless the laws change. And I'm not sure when I would want a child to carry a gun anyway, even if the laws changed. After all, a lot of studies suggest the risk/reward brain activity is different in teenagers. Anyway, assuming 21 before she could (if she wanted to) carry, what to do in the mean time?

Especially assuming the gun laws in our state and neighboring state currently outlaw even teachers from carrying on school grounds, this concerns me. Not to mention other threats that exist besides a crazy shooter (bullies, child predators, other BGs outside of school, etc.).

I hope to provide her with an environment where she can learn self defense skills, the ability to think clearly in a stressful situation, and the confidence to act to defend herself should she have to. I hope to set an example for her as well, and I plan on seeking out some training for myself and my wife for self defense w/ or w/out a firearm, and try some martial arts or other training for our child.

While we should refrain from too much second guessing what individuals could have done, we should ask ourselves what we can learn or take away from this. For me, one of the things I take away is the enforcement of my conviction to do more for my family in the way of skills training, and to do more to influence law and policy makers in my area.

I liked the one story (Print Story) (Can't find direct video link, but that story has a video link) about the couple of guys who heard/saw this guy coming, and put a table or desk in front of the door, and the guy tried to enter, and was unable to get the door cracked enough to do anything, and then shot through the door thinking he could get whoever was keeping the door closed, but because they were on either side of the door pushing the table against the wall/door, he didn't hit them and still couldn't get in.

The interesting thing about that story to me, unless the person involved misspoke, it sounded like it was just him and another guy holding the door, while there was still several other people in the room (the print story says him and two other students, but he said him and another classmate). If that's true, then those people are lucky that the two (or 3) guys were able to keep the door closed without getting shot. My point is not to second guess the other people that weren't able to help in that situation, but to inspire myself and others to do more to prepare our youth for life, and the unfortunate circumstances they hopefully never find themselves in.

Plus, as I've recently taken up shooting as a hobby, and already started my preparedness training, I've already learned alot about firearms, while I still have a lot to learn. The more you learn about firearms and defense training, the more you learn what not to do, how not to give an aggressor an advantage. I can only believe that even if just a little bit, I'm better prepared to look for weaknesses in an aggessor's weapon or tactics, compared to a few months ago.


Regards,

Karz

EDIT: The other thing about the video 'clip' (used in proper context btw) that I found interesting, was the reporter asking if anyone had a chance to call 911, kid's answer: Yeah, they were on the phone w/ 911 the whole time.... reporter asked were the police on the phone with them / giving any instructions etc., kid's answer, oh you could hear cops shouting all over the building, they were already there (at the time of this class' confrontation w/ the shooter anyway)...

So, to me that was a visual dialogue referencing that while calling 911 is a good thing to do, it wouldn't have helped this class full of kids, and that even police presence in the building wouldn't have mattered in the seconds that these kids took action to prevent their injury or death.

We are our own last line of defense in these situations, either through quick thinking, or some means to defend ourselves.
 
I am a 48-year-old female, and I have been in a similar situation, although at a less-lethal level, and I can tell you what I did.

I was at the beach in Galveston, Texas, when I saw a guy who turned out to be a Mexican boxer trying to rape a young woman. I was about 30 then, and competing in powerlifting. I jumped in and started hitting the guy to get him away from the other young woman. He hit back. We got into it. Long story short, it was a draw, and he ended up backing off when he heard the sirens coming. I had to have my jaw x-rayed because they thought it was broken, but I did save another woman from being raped.

So yes, I do know what I'd do because I have done it.

While I certainly agree that no one needs to make "survivor's guilt" worse, I will say there's room for some education and training here. People should be educated that they can choose to rush a shooter IF they are prepared to die to save others.
 
I think life is precious to most reasonable people.

In a situation like this, I believe that most people would wait for someone else to do something, knowing that the first one to charge the armed gunmen is going to get shot and possibly killed.

So everyone waits, and nothing gets done.

I remember a line from "Band of Brothers" where White(?) is gripped with fear and the fearless officer gives him advise somewhat along the lines of: "Your problem is that you still have hope. Once you accept that your are already dead will you then be able to function (as a soldier)."

I think in a situation like this you need to accept that you have nothing left to lose, even if you are the first or only one to charge the gunman. You're already dead, but you have one last chance to fight to get your life back.
 
While I totally understand where you're coming from on this, I'm not sure I agree with it. I agree that nobody should be making the survivors feel worse than they already do. My heart and prayers go out to them all, and to the families of the victims.

I don't agree with a moratorium, however. Any discussion is good discussion, even if it's not very productive. It opens eyes, gets creativity flowing, and for a lot of us, is a good way to cope. If nothing else, it lets people blow off some steam. I think we're all shocked and outraged by this mindless violence, and we all deal with it in our own way. I think we're all asking "why?" in our own way.

To tell us that we should all answer in a certain way is a bit too follow-the-leaderish for me and I'm far too individualistic to comply.
 
I think its entirely appropriate to wonder about why we are, largely, a society of sheep, and why the concept of taking aggressive action to defend yourself is so alien.

No slur on those involved, I was just as clueless in college.

We live in a passive-aggressive society, with a mind-numbing media barrage of entertainment consisting largely of violence and sex, then a news and academic culture than ingrains the attitudes of passivity and that it is someone else's job to protect you from evil.

And just to correct the media - a hero is not someone who does something to save their life. A hero is someone who risks their life to save others, without an obligation to do so. Jamming the door shut to keep a madman from blowing your brains out is not heroic, it is the survival instinct.
 
@Elmer Fudd
we are, largely, a society of sheep

That's exactly the kind of thing I was speaking out about. "They're sheep, they would only follow others, no leaders, they should have rushed him" is your implication. I don't like it.

@.45&TKD
I think in a situation like this you need to accept that you have nothing left to lose, even if you are the first or only one to charge the gunman.

Again with the "accept you're going to die and rush him". Do you know how you would have reacted? More armchair commando.

@TamThompson
I do know what I'd do because I have done it.
No, you weren't there. The guy didn't have a gun, and it made it much easier to close with him.

@ArmedBear
Presumably, some of the students, male and female in their late teens and early 20s, were much quicker and much stronger.
More "they were in the prime of life, therefore they could have rushed him." Damnation by implication. I don't like it at all.

Again. The message should be "I hope that I would have acted with courage were I in the situation", not this armchair commando crap. :cuss:

'Scuse my French.
 
For untrained, unarmed people to 'rush' an armed assailant would be heroism.

We ought to appreciate and applaud heroism when it occurs. But expecting heroism is a bit much.

I think the most we can expect is a consequence: the students and faculty at VT will be able to recognize what didn't work, and maybe they will think further on what other courses of action should be attempted.
 
@Elmer Fudd
Quote:
we are, largely, a society of sheep
That's exactly the kind of thing I was speaking out about. "They're sheep, they would only follow others, no leaders, they should have rushed him" is your implication. I don't like it.

Not my implication. Your interpretation. I would expect that they do what they have been trained to do as a society. Which is nothing. Which they largely did.

One can only wonder, though, about a society that produces a response whereby a 76 year-old man bars the door at the cost of his life while a bunch of young, strong males bail out the windows.

The issue is why we expect so little of ourselves and each other when it comes to individual and collective self-defense. If we all were more self-aware and availed ourselves of our rights like CCW, and took it PERSONALLY, then we would all be much safer. Since we, largely, do not, then this is the sad and inevitable response.

BTW, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Address the issues, not your feelings. Otherwise, this site will turn into the DU or Daily Kos :eek:

I found it ironic that this article just came out:

Study: College students get an A in narcissism

February 27, 2007

By DAVID CRARY

ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK — Today’s college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors, according to a comprehensive new study by five psychologists who worry that the trend could be harmful to personal relationships and American society.

“We need to stop endlessly repeating ’You’re special’ and having children repeat that back,” said the study’s lead author, professor Jean Twenge of San Diego State University. “Kids are self-centered enough already.”

Advertisement
Twenge and her colleagues, in findings to be presented at a workshop Tuesday in San Diego on the generation gap, examined the responses of 16,475 college students nationwide who completed an evaluation called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory between 1982 and 2006.

The standardized inventory, known as the NPI, asks for responses to such statements as “If I ruled the world, it would be a better place,” “I think I am a special person” and “I can live my life any way I want to.”

The researchers describe their study as the largest ever of its type and say students’ NPI scores have risen steadily since the current test was introduced in 1982. By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores, 30% more than in 1982.

Narcissism can have benefits, said study coauthor W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, suggesting it could be useful in meeting new people “or auditioning on ’American Idol.’ ”

“Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others,” he said.

The study asserts that narcissists “are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors.”

Twenge, the author of “Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled — and More Miserable Than Ever Before,” said narcissists tend to lack empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others.

The researchers traced the phenomenon back to what they called the “self-esteem movement” that emerged in the 1980s, asserting that the effort to build self-confidence had gone too far.

As an example, Twenge cited a song commonly sung to the tune of “Frere Jacques” in preschool: “I am special, I am special. Look at me.”

“Current technology fuels the increase in narcissism,” Twenge said. “By its very name, MySpace encourages attention-seeking, as does YouTube.”

Some analysts have commended today’s young people for increased commitment to volunteer work. But Twenge viewed even this phenomenon skeptically, noting that many high schools require community service and many youths feel pressure to list such endeavors on college applications.

Campbell said the narcissism upsurge seemed so pronounced that he was unsure if there were obvious remedies.

“Permissiveness seems to be a component,” he said. “A potential antidote would be more authoritative parenting. Less indulgence might be called for.”

The new report follows a study released by UCLA last month which found that nearly three-quarters of the freshmen it surveyed thought it was important to be “very well-off financially.” That compared with 62.5% who said the same in 1980 and 42% in 1966.

Yet students, while acknowledging some legitimacy to such findings, don’t necessarily accept negative generalizations about their generation.

Hanady Kader, a University of Washington senior, said she worked unpaid last summer helping resettle refugees and considers many of her peers to be civic-minded. But she is dismayed by the competitiveness of some students who seem prematurely focused on career status.

“We’re encouraged a lot to be individuals and go out there and do what you want, and nobody should stand in your way,” Kader said. “I can see goals and ambitions getting in the way of other things like relationships.”

Kari Dalane, a University of Vermont sophomore, says most of her contemporaries are politically active and not overly self-centered.

“People are worried about themselves — but in the sense of where are they’re going to find a place in the world,” she said. “People want to look their best, have a good time, but it doesn’t mean they’re not concerned about the rest of the world.”

Besides, some of the responses on the narcissism test might not be worrisome, Dalane said. “It would be more depressing if people answered, ’No, I’m not special.’ ”

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS07/70227056/1003/NEWS01
 
I think the most we can expect is a consequence: the students and faculty at VT will be able to recognize what didn't work, and maybe they will think further on what other courses of action should be attempted.

How will they do this, if the responses or lack thereof aren't discussed?

Some LEOs have discussed the old trend of not critiquing actions of deceased officers because it was considered disrespectful. As a result, more officers died because tactics that could have saved lives weren't developed because no one had the guts to ask the necessary questions.

There are ways to discuss what could have or should have been done and not be disrespectful.
 
The problem with many of the condemnations is that they're based on incorrect information and no small measure of bravado.

From the interviews with survivors of the classrooms last night I was given the impression that the madman entered the room and began shooting. A completely unexpected event catching students and teachers off guard since the University did not alert the staff or students to the earlier shootings. The students and faculty reacted in shock making them easy targets. No one lined up or was put against the wal and executed. In he comes, out comes the gun, and the shooting starts. Shock, confusion, chaos and death. When the madman left the room students in each room lept to bar the door and even with bullets being fired through the door as he tried to come back in they continued to bar the door at peril to their own lives.

Condemning them makes no sense under the actual circumstances.
 
A completely unexpected event catching students and teachers off guard since the University did not alert the staff or students to the earlier shootings. The students and faculty reacted in shock making them easy targets.

On the first day of an "advanced" handgun course, there were 14 students in a classroom when a shot rang out just outside the room. The instructor (who'd arranged for the blank to be fired at an opportune moment) made sure to remind us that in this room of somewhat experienced and heavily armed shooters, our universal response was to flinch and freeze rather than reach for a weapon We all were thinking who ND'd and just got thrown off the range.

Just as with the Long Island Train massacre and 9/11, the natural response is "this isn't happening" and "if I don't move, I won't get noticed". To quote someone wiser than I in this area, we default to the level of training that we've mastered. Everyone has mastered the freezing, but few have mastered responding instinctively.
 
the "what I would've done" thing is all part of the way that human beings create the "it can't happen to me" scenario in their minds.

I nearly cried when I saw CNN showing some of the myspace and facebook's of these folks who were killed. It's tough to say "it wasn't preventable" chalk up to fate or anything else, this is just a horrible thing that happened at the whim of a coward.

There's nothing else we can do but blame the deceased murderer, there was no action no prevention that could have stopped this. The VT staff did what they thought was right, the police did what they thought was right...and I guarantee that the victims all did what they thought was right.

If it was a mining tragedy, OSHA would get involved... this was the act of one crazy piece of rat vermin who caused this tragedy, and I assure you there is a power much greater than OSHA at work to take care of that gutless coward.
 
jlbraun, whether it offends your sensibilities or not, it appears that the kids in that classroom just lined up like sheep at the slaughter, and waited their turn to die.
Not making a judgement, but thats the way it looks now.

So. Let's stop this. I will say for my part that I was a bit guilty of this yesterday, and I'm sorry. From now on, I will simply say, "I hope that I would have acted with courage were I in their position."

And that's all the rest of you should say, too.

Rant off.

and might I add, that your having an epiphany, does not make it ok to be so 'holier than thou' Others may well be working through this themselves......
 
Normally, 80% or more of gunshot victims survive. In this case, what, 30% survived (14 out of 46, shooter not included)? Please correct my stats if wrong.
 
However, I hope some people think about what they would do, or what they will teach their kids to do, in the event they find themselves in a situation where the aggressor is armed and the potential victims are not

What I hope I would do is totally opposite of what I'll teach my daughter to do.
 
I agree that nobody should be making the survivors feel worse than they already do.

Why do we worry so much about the survivors' feelings at this point?

They're alive. There'll be time for them to deal with their feelings.

If they feel like they could have done something, but chose not to, then so be it. They'll need to resolve this for themselves, and there's nothing that tiptoeing around will change about that.

There are two possibilities:
1. They really COULD have done something, but chose not to.
2. They really COULDN'T have done anything.

If #2, then they need to come around to recognizing this fact. They couldn't do anything, and that was that.

If #1, then most likely, they chose not to because they'd rather be alive themselves than save someone else, if that was the choice.

They're no heroes, they're just regular people, but there's no point in lying about it to themselves or others. One is not obligated to commit suicide to save others.

If not being willing to risk yourself to save others bothers you, then the first step towards rectifying that is admitting the truth. No one ever did that by having their feelings protected by a lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top