Mindless
Here’s an article that demonstrates the vapidity of thought of those who oppose self defense on campus (and anywhere else):
In April 2007, he was a student at Virginia Tech when his girlfriend and several other people he knew there were gunned down in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Thirty-two people died, plus the gunman.
There were times when Woods thought that maybe he should get a gun.
“Then I learned pretty fast that wouldn’t solve anything,” said Woods, who is now a graduate student at UT. “The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It’s reactive, not preventative.”
Huh?
How did he “learn” that at all, let alone “pretty fast”? Who provided the lesson? Was it in graduate school at UT?
And what’s wrong with “reactive” as a fall back when “preventative” doesn’t work (as it clearly didn’t in Blacksburg)? Particularly when “preventative” seems to consist of putting up “unarmed victims heregun-free zone” signs?
Whatever he learned, or how fast he learned it, he didn’t learn it from these students, who disarmed a gunman up the road from his school back in 2002.
Opponents say that if guns are allowed on campus, students and faculty will live in fear of classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a drunken dorm argument or a poor grade.
Note, they have difficulty finding any actual examples of this to justify their bizarre paranoia. And they don’t seem to live in fear of the psychopaths among them who ignore the “gun-free zone” signs, who are the only ones with guns under their setup.
Woods, who wore a maroon “Virginia Tech Class of 2007″ T-shirt during an interview, said he hasn’t heard from any survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who supports guns on campus.
And therefore, since he hasn’t heard of any, none must exist. Great logic, that.
He figures a classroom shooting would be too sudden to stop, even if a student or teacher had a gun.
How he “figures” that, just as how he “learned it pretty fast,” remains unexplained.
“Everything happens too quickly,” Woods said. “You either play dead or you are dead.”
Really? Tell it to this woman.
Idiot.
[Monday morning update]
If I am in possession of my faculties, I will refuse to go into a nursing home unless it is a “shall issue” nursing home. I would at least want some of the staff to be armed.
[Update after the Instalanche]
If there are any new readers here, you might want to check out the rest of the blog. I have some thoughts on the president’s south Asian speech affectations, press coverage of the Fargo floods, whether or not there is really nothing that we can do about the North Korean launch, and who controls the means of production.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“You either play dead or you are dead.”
He’s still playing. There is a third option that he knows exists, but seems afraid to even mention it. He hasn’t heard from anyone, because people who consider the third option viable don’t waste their time with people that play dead when comfronted by intimidation.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:45 am
“The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It’s reactive, not preventative.”
….which is why the police always show up armed.
“He figures a classroom shooting would be too sudden to stop, even if a student or teacher had a gun.
Everything happens too quickly,” Woods said. “You either play dead or you are dead.”
”
What a pussy. I am ashamed he is a human being. He is a disgrace to both his divine soul and his DNA. He is a sheep and is not worthy to be called a human being.
From what I understand of Tech, Cho went from room to room.
Someone had time if they had the tools.
What was so almighty about Cho, a poorly trained individual who basically claimed lives thru default, that an amred student would not instantly become his equal at a de minimus?
Especially a student who might be an OIF vet now on his GI Bill? You cannot ambush an entire floor signlehandedly and retain the element of suprise.
He was the one-eyed man who could only do the damage he did because he chose a house of the blind.
I would like to know what this coward Woods is majoring in so I don’t inadvertantly hire him at some point in the future.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:54 am
What the crux of it is is Mr. Woods is too big a pussy to even consider taking responsability for his life and others. If you try, you might fail so it is better not to try at all. Those unreachable grapes must be sour anyway.
Thanks God there are his betters in service of the military and police. Thank God our ancestors were his betters as well or we would likely be extinct.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Same attitude was present at U of Washington after a murder in Gould Hall (Architecture and Urban Planning at the time).
Young woman had a restraining order against her x-boyfriend. X found her, shot her in her office.
Administration has candlelight vigils, protests against firearms, etc.
*sigh*
March 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Rand, I agree with you that Woods is mistaken about guns.
The question is “how do we change this perception?”
One of the ways to change the “all guns are bad” perception is the NRA’s “Armed Citizen” column. This monthly feature is in their magazines and has press reports of armed citizens defending themselves.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
That helps, Chris, but it’s peeing into a hurricane when you’re dealing with a press that doesn’t bother to look at it, and instead just repeats stupidity like the above without even questioning him about it. I suppose you can say that they gave both sides of the story, but you know that if it was the gun supporters saying things so mindless that there would be some hard questioning from them, at least encouraging elaboration, rather than just stenographing his emoting.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The real problem is society now sees cowardice as virture. I am not talking about consciencious objection but true unthinking cowardice as a virtuous thing. Dont fight back, hide and tell an authority figure aka mummy!
I think this relates to the nannyifcation of America and western society which is a basterdized and distorted version of feminism.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I can’t control press coverage. I do suggest that when you’re get bored Google “media and the new medevalism.” There’s an interesting article about how the media operate.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I can’t control press coverage.
Nor can I, but I can criticize it (which was the primary purpose of this post, as it is of many others — look at the categories). And if enough do so, eventually it has an effect.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
hmmm, should I be rethinking my having taken the CCW Class and applying for my permit, because it’s just my being reactive to the liberals saying they want to take all the guns?
Nope, I still want the pistol so I can protect myself from the Va Tech type shooters and the Obama type gun grabbers.
THAT thinking would puts me in the preventive category.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
A gun for protection is like a fire extinguisher.
Ypu pray you never need it but if you do, you better know how to use it.
Not having one won’t make bad fires not happen either.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
No worried. Leftists used to own the means of publishing, but no more. They’ve got some momentum from that, but negative acceleration.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
What the leftist have is the ability to shout down anything that threatens their ideology. It is pissing into a hurricane and what is really infuriating is that the supposed balance, the right leaning (and I think only in the sense that they are not completely leaning to the left) would never criticize as Rand suggests.
I don’t want fair a balanced. I want a position defended.
Yeah, still angry.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I am a holder of a CCW permit and carry most of the time. I say “most of the time” because of there are areas I have to travel to that prevent me from carrying. My son’s school and my work both prevent me from being armed (one by law the other through threat of termination). It is at these times that I feel the most vulnerable and helpless.
A lady I was dating once asked me why I was always armed and wanted to know if I wanted to shoot somebody. My answer was how would I feel if an innocent life was lost because I was unarmed. In other words, how would I have felt if I had been in that University building during that shooting unarmed knowing full well that my training would have allowed me to stop him if only I had my pistol?
There are three broad categories of people in this world; sheep, wolves and sheep dogs. Sheep are the majority of the populace. They go about their daily lives pretending that there are no wolves. When a wolf does pop up they try to control them through laws and regulation. The wolves prey on and scare the sheep. They are vicious animals who have no regard for human life and ignore the laws and regulations. The sheep dog protects the sheep from the wolves. They can be vicious animals when needed and will confront and kill a wolf without a second thought to protect a sheep, but they follow the laws and regulations. Sheep don’t like sheep dogs. The sheep dog is a constant reminder of the wolf and the danger the sheep face. The sheep dog also looks a lot like a wolf and can even act like a wolf but does so only to protect sheep. The sheep are always trying to turn the sheep dog and wolf into sheep.
Over the years I have come to understand I am a sheep dog. I will defend sheep until I die. A simple question can determine what you are: If it was possible, would you switch places with a passenger on one of the airliners that smashed into the Twin Towers? The teacher who defended the students as best as he could with what he had was a sheep dog. Our combat veterans are sheep dogs, are you a sheep or a sheep dog.
In answer to the ladies second half of her question; no I do not want to shoot somebody, but I would if it was to protect an innocent life.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I no more want to shoot somebody than I want my apartment to catch fire just so I can use my fire extinguisher.
My retort is always to ask someone if they have a fire extinguisher and why and let them answer their own question.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I don’t want to deprive people of guns (for instance, I think it’s stupid to take guns away from pilots, who are probably more effective and cheaper than air marshals, and who pose almost no added threat by having guns), but spree killings are a bad justification for that. On average, something like 30 Americans die in killing sprees every year, compared to about 11,000 total gun deaths. If you want to save lives, you don’t start by completely changing your policy to address 0.3% of the problem.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Ashley, there’s little evidence that gun bans do anything to address the other 99.7% of the problem. The interview discussed here is just another sign that existing policy is puerile.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:37 am
[...] fella Woods looks like a man but he don’t think like one. Filed under: Birkenhead Drill | No Tag No Tagx March 30th, 2009 05:37:32x [...]
March 30th, 2009 at 5:36 am
I carry whenever I’m out of the house, and even around the house on weekends (after awhile I generally forget the gun in my waistband holster is even there). But I KNOW I’m more courteous, conscious of my reactions, alert and certainly feel safer whenever I’m carrying. In fact now when I have to go down to NYC (where I, of course, along with most citizens can’t easily or legally carry) I feel unsafe and nearly naked.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:47 am
TO: TM, et al.
RE: It’s A Known Fact….
….that anyplace labeled a ‘gun-free zone’ is nothing more than an invitation for mass murder.
Look at the events in a North Carolina Nursing Home yesterday.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Once the shooting starts, you are either a combatant or a pop-up target. -- CBPelto]
March 30th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Is there anything more insane than believing that being helpless somehow protects you. I do support his right to be an unarmed victim–I do believe in natural selection–but he has no right to make others victims because of his thoroughly immoral beliefs.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:59 am
This guy drives my daughter nuts! She is currently at UT and it is awful. There have been armed robberies on campus and rapes at a bus stop near campus. Campus security is more concerned with giving out parking tickets. On the bright side, every class for shooting closes out almost immediately. On the down side, my daughter hasn’t managed to get in one yet. Even if she could get a CCL she wouldn’t be allowed to bring her gun on campus. It is terrible. She was almost mugged one night on Guadalupe right outside the campus and has been followed by a ‘homeless’ guy until she called the police. She carries pepper spray with her everywhere and many of her friends that live off campus are getting big dogs!
March 30th, 2009 at 6:02 am
What would help would be firearms use, safety and cleaning classes at schools. Those used to be available way back when, before we became overcivilized and decadent.
Of course Virginia has not only CCW but open carry… and folks really should avail themselves of that. That is a deterrent on its own… and allows for response in times of ‘invasion or Danger that will not admit delay’ instead of waiting for others to respond.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Ashley, more than half of that 11,000 gun death figure is police shooting criminals.
Most aLL of the rest is criminals shooting criminals or innocent people.
Law-abiding citizens with or without CCW’s shoot very few other law-abiding citizens, media lies to the contrary. The number of children (<18 years of age) who are killed in true firearms accidents is so low (<25/year) that it is indistinguishable from the noise in calculations. The vast majority of people who are injured or killed with firearms were deliberately engaging in dangerous or illegal behavior when they were shot (mostly drug deals).
And there has never been an instance of a gun-free zone protecting anyone. Va Tech, Columbine, and all the other successful mass shootings were in gun free zones: Look how well that worked out. On the contrary, there is sufficient evidence (empiric and anecdotal) that even a small number of law-abiding armed people can stop a murderers rampage. At the very least, even if the law-abiding near-hero is shot and killed in the attempt to stop a bad guy, they are NO WORSE OFF than had they linked arms with the other victims and sung Kumbaya; even the slightest bit of scucess would be a positive improvement.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:17 am
A possum? My God he’s a possum!
Even a sheep will run. A study (of chimpanzees, I believe) showed that when confronted with a threat that the fight/flight response varied among individuals which was a survival mechanism because one or the other would work or at least the fighters buy time for the fleeing to escape. That has always made sense to me as a “sheep dog” in the sheep/wolf/sheep dog analogy.
But a possum is just road kill.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:20 am
You can control the press and not let them control you. Cancel all print and cable media until 2010 election is over. You will take away their megaphone.
Hold a TEA PARTY.
Use you OWN megaphone to fight a Marxist government being formed before our eyes.
Check out Americans for Prosperity website; contact Young Republicans at your local universities to arrange a TEA PARTY.
Attend you local government meetings. FORCE them to live within their budget, and refuse monies from Washington.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:25 am
> Ashley, more than half of that 11,000 gun death figure is police shooting criminals.
No, it isn’t.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:34 am
It’s about cowardice. There are those who would prefer to be sheep as opposed to sheep-dogs; who would let fear consume them rather than fight back; who would sooner bite the ground under someone’s heel than rise up and risk themselves.
Disarming those around them, lowering everyone to their level of helplessness, enables them to sleep better at night. If nobody is allowed to respond when their mettle is tested, these cowards will not be unmasked for who they are. After all, if everyone is forced to act like a possum, nobody will denigrate possums for the pathetic creatures they are.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Note that this coward played dead WHILE HIS GIRLFRIEND WAS BEING MURDERED.
Having said that, though, I think you overstate the power of the anti-gunners. Considering that 75% of the US is pro-gun, and that even with the current big Democrat majority in Congress Obama can’t get votes for the AWB, I’d say that the john woodses (no capitals rated) are the ones pissing into the wind.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Maybe I missed it, George, but I did not see David Grossman credited fot his fine sheep, wolves, sheepdogs piece.
The weirdest criminal-safety zone ever was at a jewish community center where I went for a swim meet. There was a late sixies armed security guard with .38 revolver and that was all there was between a bunch of jews and an ‘angry youth’ desirous of spoiling their Sunday. ‘Cause why should a jew worry about anyone trying to kill them.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:47 am
So what are the stats, Andy?
Linkage, please, to support your assertion.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:48 am
I think you overstate the power of the anti-gunners.
I was only referring to media coverage, not their ability to actually get serious gun control passed.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:49 am
The poor lad suffers from a government education. The purpose of a government education is to produce unresisting subjects for the state. It worked. Even horrific reality couldn’t overcome the brainwashing.
Never again. It can’t happen here. Something must be wrong with me. I don’t suffer the conventional delusions. It could happen. I just do my best to make sure it doesn’t happen to me or mine.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Andy — Neither of you cited. Those are just your personal assertions until backed up.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:05 am
The power that the anti-2nd Amendment and anti-self defense folks have is that they are on the offense all the time while we are on the defense.
You cannot win if you are always playing defense. The best you can achieve is a draw. And draws means that America’s enemies are not destroyed and will return.
So how can we put these gun-grabbers on the defensive? How can we destroy them? How can we make certain their repeated lies and hyperbole are discounted by the majority of the population?
One suggestion–not the best one I fear, is to require that all citizens SHALL take a firearm safety class. Or that all citizens SHALL be part of an armed militia and partake in training once a year for a week.
Any other ways to go on the offensive?
March 30th, 2009 at 8:06 am
I once read an article in the Washington Post, if memory serves, where a descendent of a Holocaust survivor received this advice: “If someone says they are going to kill you, you should take them very seriously.” I wonder why no one ever mentions the only person at VT to fight back was a Holocaust survivor?
Yeah, that’s kind of a non-sequiter. But it was among my first thoughts after reading this article in TIME soon after the shooting…along with, “Why did this guy just lie down and wait to die?”
March 30th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Hopefully, we can all agree that intentional shootings should be ignored. Intention stabbings are not better than intentional shootings – and people involved with intentional shootings are either very sure they are doing the right thing or are unconcerned with any laws forbidding guns.
With that in mind, injecting some facts: (From an anti-gun site)
http://www.vpc.org/studies/whounin.htm
# From 1987 to 1996, nearly 2,200 American children 14 years of age and younger died from unintentional shootings.
# In 1996 the rate of unintentional firearms death was highest among males aged 15 to 19 (2.3 per 100,0000) – more than four and a half times the unintentional firearms death rate for all Americans (0.5 per 100,000).
An estimated 10 times that number are treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms each year for nonfatal unintentional gunshot wounds.
So, about 220 kids per year die, maybe 2000 per year are injured. This is out of a population of 60 million kids 0-14. Also, while some intentional shootings will be reported as non-intentional, no non-intentional shootings will be reported as intentional – so the data is biased towards reporting more unintentional shootings.
Hopefully, everyone can agree that “save the kids” doesn’t hold water. More than 220 per year die from “unknown causes”. Saving the kids by decreasing freedom even a thousandth makes no sense when only one in 300,000 is helped.
Moving onward, the previous number given was 100,000 shootings. If the unintentional shooting rate is 0.5 per 100,000 then there are 1,500 unintentional shootings per year. So, applying the argument at the top of this, only 1% of the stated number is actually addressable. The rest are either 1) gonna kill anyway – and as criminals gun laws will not effect them, or 2) they are self-defense or police shootings.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Oligonicella
The CDC has a website that allows you to cut the mortality numbers in a number of different ways.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
According to the CDC, Andy is correct. Nearly 50% of all firearm deaths are suicide. Legal Intervention (cops, I assume) account for a tiny fraction (~0.1%) of firearm deaths. Homicide was the cause of around 40% of firearm deaths.
Interestingly, if you maintain that children really are 0-14 (which is more realistic), then the number of unintentional firearm deaths are vastly outnumber by bicycle deaths, pedestrian deaths, drowning deaths, etc.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:38 am
[...] says one of the Mindless: In April 2007, he was a student at Virginia Tech when his girlfriend and several other people he [...]
March 30th, 2009 at 9:06 am
David
It is interesting that the CDC now states that in 2005 there were 75 non-intentional firearm deaths in the 0-14 group. For the 1990-1995 timeframe, the average deaths were ~250/year. From 2000-2005 the unintentional deaths were ~100.
What interests me is that the mortality rate has been progressively dropping since the middle 80’s. Yet over that period of time it seems the number of people purchasing handguns for self-defense has been growing. I cannot find proof for that latter assertion however. We can find proof that the number of states allowing concealed carry has grown however. But that isn’t really conclusive.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:14 am
“You either play dead or you are dead.”
Hell, if I’m gonna die anyway, I’m gonna try and take my killer with me. Or is that too logical?
March 30th, 2009 at 9:21 am
He said this at UT Austin? Right under the Tower?
Good Lord, what could be more ironic.
Don’t they have a plaque or something?
March 30th, 2009 at 10:38 am
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm
The story of the Pearl HS shootings in 1997. Luke Windham, age 16, shot 9 people, killing 2, at the high school and was planning on continuing his murder spree at the junior high. Windham was stopped by the HS vice principal, who had retrieved a pistol from his car.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/27734.html
Story of media coverage and the gun issue from a libertarian mag.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
[...] so very helpless against this situation? It’s clear to me that it’s the result of our gun phobia. What this vid from one of the local stations doesn’t show is that the 6 year old was [...]
March 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“What the crux of it is is Mr. Woods is too big a pussy to even consider taking responsability for his life and others. If you try, you might fail so it is better not to try at all.”
I wonder how much this accounts for that.
“… hold an implicit belief that intelligence is innate and fixed, making striving to learn seem far less important than being (or looking) smart. This belief also makes them see challenges, mistakes and even the need to exert effort as threats to their ego rather than as opportunities to improve. And it causes them to lose confidence and motivation when the work is no longer easy for them.”
March 30th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I still think the whole gun-carry vs. gun-free issue is unresolved.
Yes, if law-abiding people are armed, they can stop the bad guys. Many massacres have been prevented by armed citizens. It is also true that schools and retirement homes are targets of gunmen, while police stations never are.
BUT..
Who decides who is ‘good’ and ‘who’ is likely to eventually become bad? What if one of the armed citizens themselves go nuts? We then depend on another armed citizen to be sane at the same time.
So while I agree that good people with guns are the right way to thwart bad/unstable people with guns, who knows who is good vs. not, at any given time. The VTech shooter did not hurt anyone until he actually did.
We have know way of reading a person’s mind, and gauging who is about to snap vs. who is still balanced.
So there is still no easy solution here.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
GK says: So while I agree that good people with guns are the right way to thwart bad/unstable people with guns, who knows who is good vs. not, at any given time.
Doesn’t matter. The knowledge that there are armed citizens should be enough to quell the murderous feelings in most assailants. Those that decide to go on a rampage anyway, well, they would probably have gone anyway. The whole argument is how many people would die on a campus if students and teachers were allowed to arm themselves legally. I think it would be far less, since the perpetrators would go find someone defenseless to take their rage out on.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Mac,
Perhaps. We are in agreement that more good people with guns will lead to second and third thoughts by bad/unbalanced people.
My only problem is, how do we know who snaps when? In each case, the shooters were considered to be harmless all the way up to the fateful day. The factions of good people vs. rampaging lunatics are not always rigid. There are crossovers.
Furthermore, even if guns are allowed on campus, the left-wing professors and most students won’t carry one. They would be afraid of an accident. Everything will still depend on the few people who carry one.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
GK, I do not have numbers or a cite but there have been reports published in Newspapers concerning Florida that basically say even with the huge increase in ccw’s issued a tiny fraction have been people that abused the ccw. In fact there have been a good number of times where newspapers report law enforcement members abusing their ability to carry. I seem to recall there was something just recently in Cicero (sp) outside of Chicago where the police where interfering with a Federal investigation of an outlaw gang and mob connections. http://www.suntimes.com/news/mob/1494214,CST-NWS-mob25.article
There is a process that one goes thru, and the shall issue states say that unless something shows up it shall be issued. It does not say you walk into your local McDonalds and you get it with your happy meal.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Oh Christ, it’s that FUCKING “sheep dog” thing again.
Buddy…GET OVER YOURSELF.
That said: I’ve had classes in those rooms. There’s one door and no windows. Push the desk over to block the door, get down on the floor, and wait for the cavalry.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
> In each case, the shooters were considered to be harmless all the way up to the fateful day. The factions of good people vs. rampaging lunatics are not always rigid. There are crossovers.
Actually, the lines are quite rigid. The folks doing the killing are the lunatics. The fact that they weren’t lunatics the day before doesn’t change that.
The disarmament policies aren’t stopping the lunatics. Instead, they’re protecting the lunatics from any response during the time when said response would do any good.
Does GK really believe that a potential lunatic says “Hmm, schools are a gun-free zone so I’m not going to go lunatic.”? If not, perhaps he’ll tell us how gun-free zones stop lunatics.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“Why did this guy just lie down and wait to die?”
The elephant in the room vis-a-vis the gun control debate is the role of religious beliefs, which Volokh Conspiracy discussed a few months back. If your religion holds any violence, or at least any killing, self-defense or no, as a mortal sin, then lying down and waiting (hoping?) for God to call you home is a no-brainer. Furthermore, you have a vested interest in imposing your moral stance on society at large – what better way to insulate yourself from the real-world consequences of your beliefs?
March 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Having a suitable handgun makes that classroom a bunker rather than a tomb.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
>If your religion holds any violence, or at least any >killing, self-defense or no, as a mortal sin, then >lying down and waiting (hoping?) for God to call >you home is a no-brainer.
Then why are the two largest groups of Medal of Honor winners Irish and Latinos?
March 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
>>Then why are the two largest groups of Medal of Honor >>winners Irish and Latinos?
Maybe because they’re mostly Catholic, the religion that invented the concept of just war??
March 30th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
How can anyone with an adult IQ believe “Gun Free” zones make anyone safer? Where do most “crazies” go when they decide to off a bunch of innocents? Churches… schools… malls… all places where the crazy is least likely to encounter anyone willing or able to stop them. When is the last time a wacko picked a gun show as a great location to go shoot a bunch of people? How about “never?” Which leads me to conclude that these mass murderers may be crazy but they aren’t stupid.
With that said, the likelihood of having to defend against a deranged mass murderer is much more remote than having to face a carjacker or armed robber… I was robbed at gunpoint at a Burger King once… this was in Texas before concealed carry was permitted and I had to sit quietly while one of the thugs kicked a small boy in the head and shot one of the employees… I dare say if the same thing happened today… the perp would be DRT. (dead right there)
I was talking to a deputy sheriff recently at a local gun show… he and his wife, also a LEO, advise all their friends to arm themselves (legally)…
By the way, for you bed wetting, liberal, anti-gun, anti-self defense, just let me sit here and let you shoot me types… go to a gun show sometime… it’s simply amazing how courteous and civilized the crowd is. I have NEVER seen so much as one rude word exchanged. Which reminds me of the saying, “A well armed society is a polite society.”
March 31st, 2009 at 4:23 am
TO: M. Albritton, et al.
RE: Heh
I’m reminded of that old, true adage….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[God made men. Colt made men equal.]
March 31st, 2009 at 4:43 am
GK says: My only problem is, how do we know who snaps when?
Again, doesn’t matter. The shooter at VaTech snapped and brought his weapons on campus. So, the bad guy had access to weapons and snapped, then killed a lot of people that were forced to be unarmed. If the campus were CCW legal, I believe he would not have killed so many. People snap all the time, but they seem to go to kill in places where they can’t be opposed. They usually also wind up killing themselves after they kill others. CCW legal area, he’ll just get to the end stage a lot quicker. I’m not saying that killing is justified, or even the right thing to do, but if the victims can’t do anything but be victims, isn’t that just as bad?
March 31st, 2009 at 5:14 am
— unknown
It’s not unknown (at least to me and many of my readers). It’s Robert Anson Heinlein.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
TO: Rand Simberg
RE: Attribution
Robert A. Heinlein?
Great! Thanks….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Was that from his novel about everyone, except certain pacifists, packed ‘heat’….in the form of laser pistol?
March 31st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Speaking of Robert Heinlein and the Second Amendment, he had a lot of trouble with his editor at Scribners back when he was writing young adult novels. One is set in a frontier society on Mars, and the editor strenuously objected the the protagonist carrying a sidearm–it would send a bad message to our young readers.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Oh–and that novel was published in the mid-1950’s, which reminds us that liberal freedom-stealing fools have been doing their mischief for a long time.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:40 am
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2009/04/re-mindless.html
April 1st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
iconoclast said:
There is a bit of good news on this subject for the future. Decentralized digital fabrication has already rendered gun control completely obsolete.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
> There is a bit of good news on this subject for the future. Decentralized digital fabrication has already rendered gun control completely obsolete.
Digital printing doesn’t (yet) handle strong-enough materials.
In addition, gunpowder and primers are still necessary.