Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

As much as logic may tell us that a gun carrying student could have stopped the VPI massacre, the thought of packing a gun with your books on the way to obtain a higher education is distasteful. Every time you pack that gun in with your books, do you think about the possibility that you will have to use it today? It's a sorry commentary on the violent society we live in.

Posted by Offside at April 23, 2007 11:53 AM

It's a sorry commentary on the violent society we live in.

Friend, the society we live in today is the least violent, safest, and friendliest society that has ever graced the surface of the planet. Our ancestors would laugh out loud at the definition of "violent" we use.

What Steyn is saying is that the inability to realize that perfect safety, like any theoretical perfection, is unattainable, and that our fatuous, ignorant tendency to make plans as if we lived -- or will ever live -- in a perfect world, free of death, taxes, bad luck and human evil, is a sorry commentary on the pampered cluelessness of the society we live in.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 23, 2007 12:05 PM

Our ancestors would laugh out loud at the definition of "violent" we use.

Too true Carl.

Posted by Bryan Price at April 23, 2007 12:28 PM

Our ancestors would laugh out loud at the definition of "violent" we use.

Heck, Obama thinks that calling someone a "nappy-headed ho" is violent.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 23, 2007 12:30 PM

It's a sorry commentary on the violent society we live in.

Consider this: It is possible today in the Western world for a man to go through his entire adult life without once getting into a fistfight. 100 years ago -- or even 50 years ago, -- the very idea would be laughable. In fact, in much of the rest of the world it is still laughable.

The reason so many people feel they "live in a violent society" is because we now regard ANY violence as so abnormal. Reality has been getting better for decades, but expectations keep running ahead of reality.

Posted by Ilya at April 23, 2007 12:36 PM

Offside said: Every time you pack that gun in with your books, do you think about the possibility that you will have to use it today? It's a sorry commentary on the violent society we live in.

I think its a good commentary actually. To stop and ask yourself if its necessary is an impotant step to understanding and implementing restraint. If the kids all wanted to pack because they looked forward to filling people with holes, there you have a problem. Cho wanted to fill people with holes. He was a problem. Unfortunately, he didn't choose to hole himself first.

Posted by Mac at April 23, 2007 02:17 PM

Offside, you know what I find distasteful? Thirty two unarmed, helpless people gunned down. One of them or someone near by could have had a gun with which to DEFEND them, were it not for recent actions of the VT faculty and the VA legislature. Would a CWP holder using a gun on CHo been distasteful to you if he/she had actually stopped the killings short of 32?

I carry a concealed weapon. What I find distasteful is the idea that there may be a day that I don't have it with me for whatever reason and then need it. Other than that there is nothing about my carrying a weapon that is distasteful.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 23, 2007 03:08 PM

Cecil: BANG. Someone behind you just shot you through the head.

"Oh, well, you have to propose a realistic scenario!" Problem is that I just did.

Unless you go through life with one up the spout, the safety off, and your hand on the grip--and you throw down at the slightest stimulus--a gun is much less useful for self-defense than you people believe.

Or do you imagine that the bad guys jump out of the bushes and holler "Stand And Deliver"?

Posted by DensityDuck at April 23, 2007 03:14 PM

DensityDuck, it appears to me that you don't get it. One can contrive scenarios where a gun is useless or worse than useless. But if there were several people in that building, both carrying a gun and trained in its use, then things would have turned out differently. Cho wouldn't have snuck up on all of them. When you shoot a gun, it is loud. That's a hell of a lot more noticeable than yelling "stand and deliver".

Also, from a criminal's point of view, sure, they can ambush someone carrying a gun. But there's two problems with that. First, killing a person is a whole lot more illegal than merely threatening them with a gun. Second, if you don't kill or disable them, say because you missed, then they get to shoot back. Far better to prey on the unarmed low risk people.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 23, 2007 04:14 PM

If someone wants to kill a lot of people it's going to happen.
There was some prior service marine(Charles whitman) who killed
15 people at UT Austin in 1966.

Guns owned by locals and students didn't help much.

Posted by anonymous at April 23, 2007 04:49 PM

Guns owned by locals and students didn't help much.

Really? What makes you say that? Let's quote from Wikipedia, hardly a pro-gun forum:

Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police.

So the random civilians assisted the police in providing return fire that forced the guy to take cover. Think he was just as effective shooting while dodging cover? Does that make any sense? Think there's a reason the point man yells "cover me!" to his platoon mates while running forward?

The guy was later killed by police and a deputized citizen who climbed the stairs and got close to him because he was on the lookout for return fire from below. Would he have been so easy to surprise without the extra help from citizens? Doubt it. No one in their right mind thinks fewer guys on your side makes for a quicker and less costly victory. I mean, unless you're arguing the civilians played some Keystone Kops role, getting in the cops' way. But no actual evidence suggests that. (In particular the fact that the police encouraged the civilians, and deputized at least one on the spot, suggests the opposite.)

Next time maybe try to be aware of the difference between a statement that is grammatically correct and a sentence that makes the least bit of actual sense.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 23, 2007 05:11 PM

Books vs. guns: the new Madonna/Whore complex.

Posted by Andrea Harris at April 23, 2007 05:36 PM

DensityDuck, that is just about the stupidest thing you could possibly have come up with to post.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 23, 2007 06:00 PM

Guns owned by locals and students didn't help much.

On the contrary, the police had no long arms to return fire. Their small hand guns didn't have nearly the range to hit the clock tower, much less the gun man. It took the long arms of the civilians to get bullets on target.

It was this incident that lead to the development of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) departments.

Posted by Leland at April 23, 2007 06:28 PM

"Cecil: BANG. Someone behind you just shot you through the head.

"Oh, well, you have to propose a realistic scenario!" Problem is that I just did.

Or do you imagine that the bad guys jump out of the bushes and holler "Stand And Deliver"?"

Why would they do that? They don't know if he is carrying a CONCEALED gun.

Your crack about carrying with the safety off shows me you are so ignorant of firearms manipulation, you would be far better served keeping your pie-hole shut lest you look more the idiot.

I can take my 1911 or USPc off-safe while presenting it with no impediment on speed. In fact, the muscle memory is to the point I take them off safe presenting it to the target and put the safety on when I bring it down. All done without any conscious manipulation. It is called skill, it comes after mindset.

Posted by Mike Puckett at April 23, 2007 06:52 PM

Anonymous,

If you would like a somewhat more reputable source than wikipedia, check out "Texas Monthly", from perhaps six months ago. Its feature article covered the event.

In particular, STUDENTS got their rifles from the arms rooms that were IN THEIR FRATS / DORMS and returned fire.

As noted earlier, this pushed Whitman to ground, reducing his visibility and field of fire, thereby creating dead zones that he could not reach.

I am sure the assembled members here will accept a gracious explanation for your counterfactual comment. An expression of regret for it would also be nice, but I don't expect such things.

Posted by MG at April 23, 2007 06:56 PM

"Unless you go through life with one up the spout, the safety off,"

The Sig Sauer P series of handguns, in fact, have no safety switch. Instead the safety is an integral lock out mechanism that is only deactivated when the trigger is very nearly fully depressed. When stored in a loaded - hammer up condition the weapon has a rather hefty double action trigger to cock the hammer and discharge. After the initial round is discharged the trigger becomes a much lighter single action mechanism.

As the wise Uncle Ben once said, "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility". Most people understand the seriousness of carrying a firearm and therefore understand the virtues of exercising restraint. If an individual suffers a break down in their decision making then laws are exercised to hold that individual responsible for their actions.

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 23, 2007 10:16 PM

"After all, we already "fear guns," at least in the hands of NRA members."

People tend to have a problem with anything designed specifically to kill them.

"Otherwise, why would we ban them from so many areas of life?"

So they remain areas of life.

"Virginia Tech, remember, was a "gun-free zone," formally and proudly designated as such by the college administration."

Lebanon, however, is a proud bastion of the right to bear arms.

"Yet the killer kept his guns and ammo on the campus."

Which means that had anyone seen them and tipped off the police, the presence of guns in addition to his record would have been enough to get a search warrant and have him forcibly committed. Otherwise nobody could have done anything until he opened fire, and the NRA would have paid for his defense if they tried to kick him out.

"It was a "gun-free zone" except for those belonging to the guy who wanted to kill everybody."

Precisely. And if anyone found out about his weapons before that day and reported it to the police, he would have been on the night train to the loony bin with nary a fatality.

"Had the Second Amendment not been in effect repealed by VT, someone might have been able to do as two students did five years ago at the Appalachian Law School"

Or they could have killed more people, been shot by responding police, or fatally misinterpreted a separate situation that didn't even exist. On the other hand, if semiautomatics were banned as in Australia after a rash of killing sprees in the '90s, it might not have happened at all (as it hasn't since down under).

"but in the more important sense that the college was promoting to its students a profoundly deluded view of the world."

An accurate and rational view of the world untainted with the neurotic delusions of those who prefer the illusion of personal control over real but less gratifying safety.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 24, 2007 05:52 AM

"So the random civilians assisted the police in providing return fire that forced the guy to take cover. Think he was just as effective shooting while dodging cover? Does that make any sense? Think there's a reason the point man yells "cover me!" to his platoon mates while running forward?"

Of course, he continued to shoot at people (and hit them), despite the "coverering fire" from the civilians. Perhaps the reason he was less effective was that folks decided to stop making themselves such obvious targets?

Posted by Andy at April 24, 2007 06:27 AM

I apologize to DensityDuck. It was indeed possible for a post even stupider than his to be written, as BS proves.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 24, 2007 09:14 AM

Perhaps the reason he was less effective was...

Odd thing about reality, Andy, is that one effect can have more than one cause.

I don't think you really believe your own argument, anyway. If we were talking about Iraq say -- damn, I shouldn't have said "Iraq" so loud, now Brian will hear me, oh well -- anyway, imagine we were talking about Iraq, and whether the stupid Bushies had enough boots on the ground to provide security for this or that, and I said, oh gee, you don't need more than one guy with a gun per square mile, what the heck good are more?

What would you say? Would you agree? Or would you splutter and say, you idiot, of course the more guys with guns you have, the better you're able to repel the bad guys. Geez, doofus, that's why we have such things as armed guards, and that's why the more you have, the safer your bags of cash are, that's why the bigger army usually wins, et cetera and so forth.

So why argue a point of view which, under other circumstances, you'd find ludicrous? Find a better argument, is my advice. Say, that all those guns represent hazards to children and depressed people, or that they foster an every man for himself antisocial attitude, or whatever. But arguing that more armed bystanders has zero effect on the prevalence or severity of shooting sprees is about as silly as arguing that having bartenders as well as police monitor the sobriety of would-be drivers wouldn't reduce drunk driving deaths.

Just because you don't agree with the conclusions of the gun nuts doesn't mean every argument they make is shit. You'd be better off conceding this bloody obvious point as a good one, but then noting that there's far more to the entire issue than this one point, and on other points yadda yadda yah. See how it's done?

Posted by Carl Pham at April 24, 2007 09:18 AM

BS: "real but less gratifying safety."

Tell that to the 32 victims of VT's "gun free" zone.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 24, 2007 09:21 AM

"I don't think you really believe your own argument, anyway. If we were talking about Iraq say -- damn, I shouldn't have said "Iraq" so loud, now Brian will hear me, oh well -- anyway.."

Well, them's apples and these's oranges, so the analogy doesn't fit. For me, anyway.

"But arguing that more armed bystanders has zero effect on the prevalence or severity of shooting sprees"

But I didn't make that argument. Not in this particular case, anyway...

"Just because you don't agree with the conclusions of the gun nuts doesn't mean every argument they make is shit."

The converse is true as well, I might point out. But, I never made that argument, not in this particular case, anyway...

"You'd be better off conceding this bloody obvious point as a good one, but then noting that there's far more to the entire issue than this one point"

I figured with discerning readers such as yourselves you'd understand that, through the use of "perhaps." Maybe it would have been clearer had I also said "a primary" rather than "the," but it wouldn't have changed the essence of my point.

Posted by Andy at April 24, 2007 11:17 AM

"Tell that to the 32 victims of VT's "gun free" zone."

oh burn.

"I can take my 1911 or USPc off-safe while presenting it with no impediment on speed. In fact, the muscle memory is to the point I take them off safe presenting it to the target and put the safety on when I bring it down."

How nice for you. Who's your target, then? Is it the BANG whoops too late! Now Cho has three guns.

Here's a common theme: "Oh, if someone had a gun, there would have been many fewer fatalities!" Yeah, I suppose so. You know what else worked pretty well? Blocking the damn door. Let's not forget that one class of students sat there like rabbits gone tharn, waiting for someone to come and make it all be okay. Someone finally got up and shoved the teacher's desk into the doorway. Cho tried the door, found it blocked, and moved on. Holy shit--a whole classroom that survived, and nobody in there had a gun! Inconceivable!

"Also, from a criminal's point of view, sure, they can ambush someone carrying a gun. But there's two problems with that. First, killing a person is a whole lot more illegal than merely threatening them with a gun."

Great. So concealed-carry means that there are fewer overall crimes, but that the crimes which do occur are guaranteed to be deadly--because you can assume that your target is armed and will return fire if given the slightest chance. Where's my incentive to not shoot you dead first?

"Second, if you don't kill or disable them, say because you missed, then they get to shoot back."

True. So, you have someone shoot you in the lungs before you go to target practice, then?

Posted by DensityDuck at April 24, 2007 05:07 PM

DD: "Now Cho has three guns."

Give an instance where that has ever happened. You can't, but I can give you several where an armed citizen did indeed stop a killer.

DD: "students sat there like rabbits gone tharn, waiting for someone to come and make it all be okay."

Of course, that is what todays "leave your safety to the state" society teaches us to do. It is what you advocate when you want deny honest law abiding citizens their right to arm themselves.

DD: "So concealed-carry means that there are fewer overall crimes, but that the crimes which do occur are guaranteed to be deadly"

Fine liberal theory but like most liberal theory there is no evidence borne from real life experience that backs it up.

DD: "So, you have someone shoot you in the lungs before you go to target practice, then?"

Again you speak from ignorance since most CWP holders like myself take the responsibility of being an armed citizen seriously and we practice on a regular basis. I scored 100% on both my written and firing range tests, I wonder how many cops can say the same?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 25, 2007 06:49 PM

Cecil: Don't intersperse quote from my post if you're going to follow them with unrelated statements. It makes you look as though you're replying to me, when actually you aren't.

Posted by DensityDuck at April 26, 2007 09:58 AM

Cecil: "Tell that to the 32 victims of VT's "gun free" zone."

Tell that to the millions of people who've been through all four years of gun-free college with nary an incident, Charles Bronson Jr.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 27, 2007 11:15 PM

Post a comment