It took almost a day for some on the left to start blaming Sarah Palin for what happened in Norway. It probably took a while for them to get over their cynical shock that it actually was a white guy this time.
I will note, though, as an aside, that like school shootings in “gun-free zones,” this was another catastrophic failure of gun control. Just a few rifles in the hands of the older kids on that island, with training, would have ended this pretty quickly. Instead, they were fish in a barrel for him.
[Saturday evening update]
Bruce Bawer:
It is chilling to read my own name in postings by this mass murderer. And it is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party.
This is, as he says, doubly tragic, and a setback in the war.
I agree, and I’m not going to go into a detailed thesis, but it seems to me that if citizens are to have guns (and I think this both proper and a right (maybe even a natural law right)), then they are going to *have* to be able to carry them in public so that they can take care of guys like this.
In nations that number in the millions and above, it is statistically too hard to prevent “lone wolfers” from doing something like this without going the draconian route of absolutely no citizen-owned guns whatsoever. That means the proper corrective action is to have enough other citizens with guns available for action such that, on a statistical basis, it is likely any shooter will be outnumbered and brought down quickly. Anything else is just wishful thinking, and has been proven to not work. So I roger the post.
I’m sympathetic to this argument and I think it would probably have worked in this case. But in general, if there is a shooting and everybody draws their guns, how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys? If they’re dressed like religious fanatics, if they’re ranting and raving then it would be obvious. But what if they dress as polic officers, if there are multiple shooters and multiple real officers?
Obviously if the perp is impersonating a cop it complicates things, but I think that both real cops and others would figure out pretty quickly, after he shot a couple unarmed people, that he had to be taken down.
What – nobody’s blamed Sarah Palin and the Tea Party yet?
Barbara wins this thread from a comment on a prior thread.
That was actually the first thought that came to my mind. Poor people, and left totally defenseless due to the fact that they have no weapons, cannot carry them if they did, and have no training in how to use them. It doesn’t in any way make a society safer. Profoundly to the contrary.
@MPM that’s a decent hypothetical, I suppose, but do you have a single instance where it has happened? I mean, Florida has had shall issue laws for about 15 years now and a population of about an average of 16,000,000 for all that time and I am totally unaware of such a situation occurring.
In fact, I’m unaware of anything much like that happening in the US anywhere, ever. Personally, I’m not a big fan of “The Precautionary Principle” under which we can never do anything if even the remotest hint of a bad outcome exists.
Please consider weighing the good and the bad in your scenario. Is it worth it to have that happen if having armed citizens prevents some 2,000.000 crimes per year [per Lott or Kleck or whoever did that study]? I mean, we use dangerous motor vehicles all the time and 40,000 people per year are killed due to that use. Many are killed by trains or electricity or medical drugs/treatments. Should we give them all up?
cbpelto
TO: Rand Simberg, et al
RE: THIS….
….is not so much a failure of ‘gun control’ as it is a failure of the ‘Fighting Spirit’, as we call it in the Army.
Look it was—as we understand it at this time—ONE MAN, against hundreds.
He had a gun. He had ‘fighting spirit’. They had NOTHING. Not even the young men had the necessary spirit to defend themselves. Let alone defending the young women being murdered.
Something vital has gone out of the Scandanvian bloodline that made the Vikings—of which I claim my entire bloodline—[in]famous. Where have all the ‘berserkers’ gone?
Any five or ten of the young men on the island when the shooting started could have taken this—apparently one—man down. Snapped his neck and toasted each other with the famous ‘Skal!’
This man is a ‘monster’ of the same nature as Grendal. Too bad there was none of the bloodline of Beowulf on the island at the time.
Regards,
Chuck(leless)
[When the shoot starts, you are either a combatant or a pop-up target.]
MPM: There is nothing that works in every case. The best you can do is go with statistics, and there will always be three-sigma cases.
I don’t know if it’s real or an artifact of car-crash “journalism”, but it seems to me that these fish-in-a-barrel shootings are on the rise. If the fish could shoot back, it seems to me that there would be fewer of them. The cost of that would be, yes, an occasional case of guns-blazing mistakes. The question is which is more probable and which is more costly, and “neither alternative” is not one of the choices.
Regards,
Ric
War is what you have when two sides, both armed, engage in conflict. War is certainly awful.
But you get a massacre when only one side is armed.
So from the viewpoint of the victim side, a war is much preferable to a massacre. And when the aggressor side is rational enough to realize the costs of war, even war may be avoided.
So when both sides are armed, there is no massacre, and there may even be peace.
TO: Brad
RE: Armed?
Being ‘armed’ is not enough.
It takes the will to FIGHT, that makes the entire difference.
Look at history. Poorly armed Zulus overwhelmed a heavily armed column of British infantry.
Sitting Bull overwhelmed Custer.
The Germans overwhelmed several legions of Romans.
No. Being armed is not enough.
Being willing to FIGHT with whatever you have, even against superior arms, is the essence of victory.
You can have all the weapons you like, but if you are unwilling to use them, the weapons are useless.
That is what happened on Utoya. These young men—what…how many hundred men—were unwilling fight when the figthing began. If any five or ten of them had conducted IMMEDIATE and VIOLENT ACTION against this madman, the death toll would have been far less.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Sheep, meet slaughter.]
P.S. Does the term “Let’s roll” mean anything to you?
More insanity nonsense caused by ‘feel-good, common-sense’ gun control writ large.
I am sure the Norwegian “progressives” will go after the guns that didn’t kill anyone instead of taking realistic measures to prevent a re-occurence that actually requires a trip out of fantasyland and into reality.
Ever notice where these things don’t happen anymore?
Yep, Israel. They figured out quick it takes a gun to stop a gun.
When it’s thought to be just dandy to murder the unborn in the womb, why is this massacre such a problem…? Too many people on the earth anyway, right? (Sarcasm off.) When individuals no longer have anything inside themselves to prevent committing mass murder, mass murder is then acceptable. No inanimate objects have volition. When liberty is defined as the complete absence of limitation, men breed monsters.
I also agree with the comments that say it is a sign of passivity in a citizenry of the Western world that is used to a stable society. I’m quite sure the Germanic hordes had an equally easy time conquering the Roman provinces, once they had defeated the armies of the Empire.
My answer has been that we need to bring back the militia, not so we can fight off the British should they try to reverse 1783 (or our own guv’iment for an attempt on same), but so it can be a way for citizens to have the spirit to act proactively with a sense of civic ownership when moments of real world action are required–floods such as Katrina, local large fires (such as in California), events such as this, and other disasters. A lot of effort is put into encouraging people to vote and make their voice heard, but more effort needs to be put into instilling in people a need for taking more ownership and responsibility for their communities. If one expects the government to do everything for you, don’t be surprised if the only thing that happens for a while is nothing.
You always need a sheep dog for a flock of sheep. We keep forgetting that lesson.
@MPM: Well, you would shoot the guy who is killing everyone. Most likely it would be the fastest thinker who would do it. On the off chance the killer spotted him and took him down, it would be the second fastest thinker.
The real world is never as complicated as the hypothetical world. Your scenario sounds like a planned theoretical out of a game, not any story I’ve ever heard, except maybe some saloon legends from the Old West.
“But in general, if there is a shooting and everybody draws their guns, how do you tell the good guys from the bad guys?”
If they point their gun at you, or at anyone who is not a threat to them, they’re a legitimate target.
Makes a world of difference if you have a chance in a fight (or even the perception of a chance [e.g. have guns] or the mission is suicidal). Odds of success 50/50 will bring out the best in people. 99% chance of death, no so many want to volunteer. Just another consequence of feminism in my humble opinion. Pretty pathetic actually. Just a thought – if you ladies want men to be willing to die for you, you have to be worth it. Lately, well, given how the male gender is regarded, you all can just put your burkas on now.
“You always need a sheep dog for a flock of sheep. We keep forgetting that lesson.”
….but they look so wolf-like and their fangs are sharp! they also make the sheep feel inadequate when they are around!
We can’t have the reality of a good sheep dog destroy our ‘common sense, feel-safe’ fantasy now can we?
I just read his manifesto. He had more than a gun. He had multiple weapons, ammo caches, and various pieces of ballistic armor.
Scribd doc at this link:
http://blogs.reuters.com/events/2011/07/22/explosion-rocks-oslo/
“Chuck Pelto Says:
TO: Brad
RE: Armed?
Being ‘armed’ is not enough.
It takes the will to FIGHT, that makes the entire difference.”
the word you are looking for is “Mindset” Chuck.
Also:
“Having a gun and thinking you are armed is like having a piano and thinking you are a musician” Col. Jeff Cooper-U.S.M.C.
MPM many of these massacres would be thwarted at the planning stage if the possibility of armed resistance was existed. These lunatics plan their attacks secure in the knowledge that they are in “gun-free” zones.
Once again we are faced with the main stream media meme; If the left does something we are to look at it as an isolated incident and never EVER draw any broad conclusions…………..or
The right does something (and I am not convinced of the rightness of this murderer) than we are to conclude IMMEDIATELY that the entire political spectrum on the right is completely evil and insane and must be outlawed.
The NY Times (online) scare headline: “Christian Extremist Held in Norway.”
My guess is that the headline writer will soon gain a well-deserved promotion.
OK, so the Norwegian Nut Job had multiple guns, many rounds of ammunition and he was dressed as a policeman. As a daily CCH person, that means nothing to me after I hear the first report.
IF I see someone like this man, and he is systematically going through the general populace, shooting people with no rhyme nor reason. I will work myself as close to him as possible and take careful aim at places on his body NOT covered by armor, and begin to shoot him. My first objective would be to slow him down or ultimately stop him by taking out necks, legs, arms, shoulders.
If I can do that, I’ll disarm him completely. If I get really lucky, he’ll ‘make a break for it’ or try to ‘take my gun’.
I’ve had this conversation, or ones like it numerous times with non-gun owners and anti-gun people. I understood the weight of my decision to carry.
But it wasn’t until I began to defend my right, that I realized how many (weak minded) adults would rather play “I’ll never get gunned down”roulette, than to allow ME to defend MYSELF and possibly them.
These people all lock their office doors, home doors and car doors. They have car and homeowners and life insurance, OnStar and LOJACK, maybe even AFLAC. They own fire extinguishers, smoke and CO2 detectors and they take vitamins and they exercise 20 mins, three times a week. They get physicals every year and they drink skim milk and they put low fat mayo on their Turkey Bacon, lettuce and organic tomato sandwich.
But they don’t believe in giving themselves, or anyone else, the ability to defend themselves from some crazy MFer who has slipped a cog, is no longer playing by the general rules of mankind as we see them, and who thinks he’ll get His 15 Andy Warhol minutes, if he kills or maims 100, or 1000, or a 1 million people in the name of God, Allah or Bjorn Borg.
It’s a little bizarre to me.
Almost as bizarre as blaming Person A for the sins of Person B, without any proof, connection or anything beyond an obvious agenda.
“IF I see someone like this man, and he is systematically going through the general populace, shooting people with no rhyme nor reason. I will work myself as close to him as possible and take careful aim at places on his body NOT covered by armor, and begin to shoot him. My first objective would be to slow him down or ultimately stop him by taking out necks, legs, arms, shoulders.”
I would try and work myself behind him and shoot him in the back of the head as unseen as possible. Don’t make it harder than it has to be. You can’t cheat, think outside the box.
I would try and work myself behind him and shoot him in the back of the head as unseen as possible
It sounds like this fellow was far better armed than the average Joe with a CCW. He was also presumably in the throes of a murderous frenzy that would have been instantly directed your way in the event you drew his fire. The chances you could “work [yourself] behind him” are extremely remote. If he is wearing body armor, your chances of taking him out with a pistol at anything but close range are pretty slim, and if you miss, you’re dead.
I agree that if there were one or more armed men in his vicinity there is a possibility that his murderous rage may have been mitigated, but it is far from a sure thing.
“The chances you could “work [yourself] behind him” are extremely remote. If he is wearing body armor, your chances of taking him out with a pistol at anything but close range are pretty slim, and if you miss, you’re dead.”
1) That depends on where I am when the shooting starts. I am more likely to NOT be in front of him than I am to be in front of him. The one thing about an active shooter is he can’t be everywhere at once and he doesn’t know who is CCWing.
“If he is wearing body armor, your chances of taking him out with a pistol at anything but close range are pretty slim, and if you miss, you’re dead.”
I don’t like to blow my own horn but I am a non-novice shot with a pistol and have had considerable professional training in both marksmanship and tactics. At a recent class, starting at 40 M and working my way back to 120M in 10M increments starting at 40M,(called a wlak-back drill) I hit an 18″x18″ steel gong 1st round every time with an almost stock Glock-17. The class had 4 active Virginia Beach SWAT and a former Green Beret in it. It was instructed by the retired head firearms instructor for SOFD-D. By the time we hit the road and ran out of range on Range 5 at Moyock, there were only two shooters left and only one with no misses. You were allowed two misses and then you were considered ‘out’. The chances I can make a head shot at under 25m, even under stress, are decent.
Unless the guy is looking right at me while engaged in his orgy of death, the odds are I will be able to get of several shots at his noggin. I can get off an aimed follow-up in less than a second per shot.
In the time it would take him to realize he was under fire, evaluate where the threat was coming from and direct effective fire against me while I am attempting to perforate his face, odds are pretty good one shot would connect and degrade his ability to return fire enough for me to finish the threat.
Action beats reaction. It is why you can snatch a quarter our of someones hand even when you tell them first you are going to do it. It takes the human mind a certain amount of time to process the visual input and select and direct the correct response. Your chances drawing and firing a pistol against another human being holding you at gunpoint are better than you might think for this very reason, especially if you have a practiced drawstroke and are a trained, competent shot.
That said, I practice making low-percentage shots on-demand almost weekly. What is your resume?
I found this on another site, it illustrates the concept well. Pat Rogers is a renowned instructor:
“Pat Rogers put me through an action vs. reaction drill that I could not believe the results of.
Three shooters standing abreast about 7 yards away from three pepper poppers. I was in the middle and two other shooters of equal abilities were on either side of me. I was the victim of a mugging by the other two. They were standing pistols drawn at the low ready while I was holstered concealed with my hands up. Pat told me to shoot the two poppers in front of me that represented my opponents and my opponents were to attempt to shoot the one in front of them that represented me when they saw me begin the drawstroke. I told him he was crazy that I would not win.
We took positions and I verbally began begging for my life, etc. etc. etc.. I drew and shot down all three poppers before they got a single shot off. I was amazed. That was when I became a proponent of action vs. reaction.”
That said, I practice making low-percentage shots on-demand almost weekly. What is your resume?
Well, whatever my resume is, the chances some of those dead kids on Utoya were possessed of your (chest-pounding, braggadocio-induced, absurd) self-described expertise is completely nil, and thus your silly, obscene posturing makes you look like a fool.
Sorry, chum, but that’s the way I see it.
Note: I did clean up the above a bit as the poster made some things confusing in regards to the position of the shooters and the targets. They were assuredly shooting at the line and NOT towards each other!
“Well, whatever my resume is, the chances some of those dead kids on Utoya were possessed of your (chest-pounding, braggadocio-induced, absurd) self-described expertise is completely nil, and thus your silly, obscene posturing makes you look like a fool.”
Not as much a fool as your using a strawman makes you a witless asshole. Please tell me, where was I offering myself as a participant in a scenario where I was a Norwegian teenager trapped on an island with a psychopath? Show me where and I will send you a check for $100. Otherwise, you should take off your clown-shoes and shut fuck up at least until you have a clue what you are talking about.
Please. fuck your unearned, phony righteous indignation.
You can call it braggadocio, I call it verifiable fact. It is what it is whether you like it or not. You were the one who started short-bussing and wanting to second-guess me. I showed my hand, I see you resort to insults and butt-fucking strawmen instead of telling us your qualifications to critique my tactics and abilities.
“”“Well, whatever my resume is, the chances some of those dead kids on Utoya were possessed of your (chest-pounding, braggadocio-induced, absurd) self-described expertise is completely nil, and thus your silly, obscene posturing makes you look like a fool.”
PS: Anytime you want to put up or shut up, bring some money and we will shoot for $100 bills. I usually do this with $5’s with my friends. I will make it a worthwhile wager if you show up and we can use Ben Franklin instead of Lincoln. It is a simple drill. We staple the bills around the bullseye. Whoever hits the bill loses it. Whoever shoots the fewest bills gets the entire pot.
You need to sober up.
You need to get the sand out of your vagina.
Chuck
As for your theory of the superiority of the Morale over the Material, it is an old idea and modern history has found it wanting.
The French believed it in World War I and all they got was a mountain of French corpses and the near mutiny of their Army. The Japanese believed it in World War II and all they got was a humiliating and suicidal defeat.
Even if you strongly believe such a theory it is very bad form to flaunt it while the families of the victims haven’t even had a chance to bury the bodies yet. You are as good as saying the victims had it coming because they were weak. You are saying this about children.
Demonstrate some decency and stow the macho posturing.
@JorgXMcKie et al:
I didn’t mean to say I was against citizens carrying firearms for this reason, just wondering about the practicality. I agree the outcome would likely be considerably better than with unarmed citizens and one madman. Obviously you could “safely” shoot at the person shooting unarmed individuals, but wouldn’t you be scared to be in the neighbourhood of ten jumpy individuals with guns drawn + one or more criminals not knowing how many there are and which is which? If a good guy points his gun at you because he’s not sure you’re a good guy too, what should you do? It could be a like a Mexican standoff squared.
Then again, if no one has ever heard of this scenario happening in real life, then odds are it’s not a big problem.
Chuck is right about fighting back. If I see somebody mowing down children with a gun I’m not going to wait until I have a good shot. I’m going to shoot immediately (up in the air if kids are too close) so the wacko has other things to think about than lining his shot up on some defenseless child.
I’m also going to be calling 911 (or the local equivalent) and letting the authorities know about the situation so they can react. If I kill the guy fine, but I definitely want to put him on the defensive until the police arrive.
Being far enough away that we both miss each other is fine as long as it does two things. 1) Keeps the wackos attention on the guy firing at him. 2) Give the authorities time to arrive.
I don’t have to be macho to do this. I just have to care.
Ken
You misunderstand Chuck’s original point or didn’t read his post. Chuck wasn’t talking about fighting back with a gun. Chuck was complaining that the unarmed victims didn’t fight back en masse!
Of course for all we know at this point some of the victims did fight back, and did try to swarm the killer, just as Chuck advises. For all the good it did them.
Some early reports indicate the killer made full use of his police disguise and exploited the general confusion by coaxing people out of cover with claims that he was the police and that it was safe to come out. Supposedly a group of 20 or so came out of hiding and came to him and he gunned them all down at close range.
In a society where there has been a successful campaign teaching that weapons are bad in themselves, what has actually been instilled is not a form of knowledge, but fear internalized. This internalized fear paralyzes those under its spell and renders them capable of manipulation by a ferocious minority, even a minority of one. All it takes is someone not far enough entranced to break the spell. It looks like one of these was not present at this camp.
Not just a failure of gun control, a failure to question the motives of an authority figure. If I saw a cop gunning down people without restraint, I’d notify as many trustworthy people as I could, and then try to kill him. It actually makes real cops safer if there are people willing to do this, not just because it discourages impostors, but also prevents the terror such acts spread through the community from turning into misdirected anger at real police officers.
Plus, it pretty quickly weeds out the bad cops (and there will always be bad cops, they’re only human after all) who decide to pull the same sort of stunt that Breivik did.
Once upon a time, we actually sought to arm and equip everyone as best we could to fight anything that attacks them, whether a rabid raccoon or another human being out to kill them. Not any more, though, we’ve honestly come to believe that nobody can be responsible for their own actions and therefore every human being is just one bad day away from becoming a bloodthirsty berserker hell-bent on massacre, so the only thing that makes sense is to disarm the majority and hand all power to a tiny minority.
Please accept in advance my apology for the length of these comments.
1. There is a deterrent component to the 2nd Amendment. Communities that disarm citizens become free fire zones for criminals, who by definition, do not obey the law. Ask any convicted armed robber what he fears. He knows how to evade the police, but he is deathly afraid of an armed victim.
2. At VaTech, the campus did not have too many guns; it had too few. Had someone been armed, he could have confronted the gunman with deadly force rather than sitting waiting to be shot. The same was true in Tucson. As for the danger to bystanders, you can take a knee and shoot up at your assailant having errant projectiles pass over the heads of others. Most trained shooters know to wait for a clear shot. If a “policeman” began executing a crowd of teenagers who are not a threat to him, he’s not a real cop. Draw your weapon, get behind something and order him to cease fire. If he turns on you, shoot him.
3. Anti gun groups believe that the police can protect the public from criminals. They are, of course, wrong. Police will investigate your murder, try to identify the offender, try to apprehend him and put him under arrest. Assuming law enforcement is successful and the criminal is convicted and sentenced, he will, for a while, be off the streets. Unfortunately, you will still be dead.
4. My resume? I’m licensed to carry a concealed weapon – a .45 caliber Colt Model 1911 cocked and locked. My magazines alternate full metal jacket and hollow point rounds that I load myself. I’m not a natural marksman, so to remain proficient, I shoot about 100 rounds per week in several self defense scenarios. One that gets lots of laughs starts with me on my back with my weapon in the holster and my glasses off. My target is a silhouette 10 yards away. I shoot two rounds into the thorax in one second, pause two seconds before shooting two more into the head. At that point, laughter subsides. I have been shooting big bores since 1962, my plebe year at Annapolis. In 1971-72, I flew F4Es out of DaNang AB, Vietnam. Shot down once, by a Soviet SA2 on April 28th, 1972. Made it “feet wet” and got rescued by the bravest men on Earth, 33rd Air Rescue Recovery Squadron.
“If a “policeman” began executing a crowd of teenagers who are not a threat to him, he’s not a real cop. Draw your weapon, get behind something and order him to cease fire. If he turns on you, shoot him.”
Draw your weapon, get behind something and shoot him in the back of the head and upper torso. Never give a sucker an even break. If he is killing inocent people, the time for giving him a chance to cease fire is well past. The notion of having to face a bad guy to kill him is false chivalry.
Sorry, I don’t agree with the premise that a Norwegian equivalent of the 2nd Amendment would have made much difference here. For all the commenters saying that they would have stopped Bleivik, color me unconvinced.
What would have made the difference, I think, is if Norway followed the Israeli model (which of course it will never do, but humor me). In Israel, military service is universal except for Arabs, who may volunteer, though they are not drafted. That means that pretty much everyone over the age of 18 is trained in firearms use. If Utoya had been in Israel all the camp’s staff and activity leaders would have been armed. That is what would have stopped Bleivik, not a vanishingly small percentage of citizens who just happened to be carrying a pocket pistol, as if the case here in the US.
And even if Utoya had been here in the US, it would have been one of the dozens of places that a CCP holder could not pack heat.
” If Utoya had been in Israel all the camp’s staff and activity leaders would have been armed.”
I don’t think so. On the West Bank, sure. In Israel, very unlikely at best.
Chuck Pelto said…
Something vital has gone out of the Scandinavian bloodline that made the Vikings…
That may be true, I have never been to Scandinavia to know.
Nothing in this story backs that up as a fair generalization. The people on this island were the children and leaders of a progressive or liberal political group. They of course would not think to defend themselves or their friends, especially from a policeman. They are indoctrinated with the ideas that make people subservient to and dependent upon the authorities. Their attacker no doubt knew this as depended on it for his safety.
It does appear that the shooter was also a descendent of the Vikings. Maybe the spirit still exists but clearly not on that island.
Donald,
Like the other Nordic counties Norway does requires compulsory military service. Its required for all males, 19 to 44. I expect we will learn that the shooter learned how to handle guns while doing compulsory service.
http://mil.no/organisation/compulsory-military-service/Pages/compulsory-military-service.aspx
But its just not a gun culture. The police are usually unarmed.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1106865.ece
[[[NORWAY: The only nation with unarmed police. Police arm on orders of the police commissioner, and then with S&W 38 revolver or MP-5 machine pistol, and non-expanding ammunition. ]]]
You misunderstand Chuck’s original point or didn’t read his post.
Incorrect on both counts, Brad. However, you are not the first to accused me of such because of the way that I tend to choose to respond. I’m a person that is always looking for different perspectives. I can respond more directly.
There is an adage that…
“No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.” – Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke (Google is your friend.)
Which I usually paraphrase to “No plan survives the first shot” (see how long comments become when you have to qualify everything you say?)
The wacko dressed as a cop and coaxed unarmed children out of cover to shoot them. That doesn’t change the fact that Chuck is still right. It just means you have to adapt to circumstances. Wasn’t there a shooting in an Amish school a while back? I understand they applied that lesson successfully.
Obviously unarmed two year olds aren’t going to be successful. That’s why we have adults to protect them. But by the time they are teenagers, they are well equipped to swarm a bad guy successfully (defined that some may die but they limit the danger to others.)
Just as obviously, they don’t swarm the bad guy if the situation is such that others are around to protect them.