What I’d been wondering but didn’t mention
There are reports — granted unconfirmed at this time — that several
students were forced to line up, kneeling, and executed from behind.
I pray to the old gods — the gods of war and blood and thunder — that this is not the case.
I pray that some students went down fighting.
Because as bad as this is — and this is a horror — as bad as this
is, if fifty some-odd people were injured and killed by one person
whilst on their knees begging like so many Eloi, like a herd of sheep
— if no one stood up and fought back, then this is becomes an example
of evil.Not the evil that allows a man to kill other men — although that is
here in abundance. No, I am speaking of the putrescent evil which
convinces good men not to fight back; the sordid filth of the soul
which allows one bad man to prevail against fifty — or 25,000 — good
men because good men have been systematically denied the mindset
required to meet with, engage and defeat evil — even if all you have
is fingernails and rage.One man. On a campus of 25,000 people. 25,000 people surrounded by
fire extinguishers, book bags, pencils, pens, drafting compasses,
chairs, broom handles, power strips, ceramics, chains and everything
heavy and/or sharp.One man managed to gun down fifty people — or more — without being
stabbed and bludgeoned to death where he stood by the other 24,950
people.I weep for the dead. I weep for the families who lost their treasured children today.
I weep even more for a land which not only denies the tools required
for self-defense, but also denies the very mindset required for
self-defense.
(LawDog, via Bill St. Clair)
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
We've been stripped of the will to defend ourselves (more so here in the UK than in the states, I'm ashamed to say) so that we are ever more vulnerable to the predations of the state. Its as simple as that.
I heard one of the survivors say he thought about rushing the shooter but there was really no opportunity, the guy just kept shooting. Sounds reasonable to me. I'm skeptical of the story of people being lined up kneeling, it doesn't fit what I've heard.
Most people in this country have no experience at all with handguns: none. All they know is what they see in the movies, which is just about uniform nonsense. They have no idea in the world what it takes to hit a moving target with one, which is an extremely difficult thing to do for everyone — cops included — but authentic prodigies.
What "sounds reasonable" is in fact based in sheer ignorance. When that's added to the very natural difficulty of overcoming mortal fear with courage, it's not surprising that nobody rushed that creep, but it's also not connected with the actual reality of handgun operations.
He could have been taken by un-armed people. Absolutely no question about it.
Hindsight is, of course, a lot clearer. My mom made a comparison to the 9/11 hijackings, and I think that's a reasonable comparison. Seems inconceivable, in retrospect, that a planeload full of people would submit to guys with boxcutters.
This guy had a gun and was firing, of course. In the case of 9/11, people no doubt submitted because they thought that would be the most prudent course, as most hijackings end with reasonably good results for the hostages.
But notice what happened once the one flight's (the number escapes me at the moment) passengers realized that the only way this could possibly end well is if they were fortunate enough to make it so. They were unsuccessful, but given the alternative, the result was the 2nd best outcome.
Perhaps when some of the survivors can tell of the on-scene carnage, we'll learn whether anyone put up a fight. I really don't think anyone can know for sure how they would ultimately respond, but I sure do spend some time every now and then thinking through such possible scenarios and how I would react and what I would do. I think taking the time to think through some of this stuff would stand you in much better stead to be in a position to actually think during such an event rather than be paralyzed with fear and terror.
Kennedy's inability to pay attention and his arbitrary isolation of "the guy" from the fact of more than one person in at least one of the rooms notwithstanding, Rich, you're absolutely right.
And this is the whole point of my point about ignorance. One good reason why people are ignorant of these matters is that they never think about them.
That's because you're an idiot and you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes. I could.
That's not the issue. It's a lot bigger than that, or what you're able to see.
First, I was responding to this:
"There are reports — granted unconfirmed at this time — that several students were forced to line up, kneeling, and executed from behind."
Staying low and seeking cover is not the same as kneeling waiting to be executed from behind.
"He could have been taken by un-armed people. Absolutely no question about it."
I don't doubt that he could have been stopped by *people*, but people don't act with collective will. The guy in question only had himself to rely on. I'd say he was at significant disadvantage going up against a guy firing two pistols. He didn't know how many rounds the guy had,the shooter could run out of ammo any second for all he knew. The shooter could also have left the room, which is in fact what happened. This guy acted on his own judgment and survived. I see no reason to second guess him on his choice from the options he had available at the time.
Perhaps he should have spent more time earlier on mastering the tactics of taking down an armed man. But that's really not for me to say either because people have competing values and they can't all be pursued.
Sure he wasn't alone in the room but he only gets to choose his own actions. Are you saying that if you'd been in his place the other people in the room would have acted differently? I think that kind of depends on whether you got shot quickly. Even if they do act differently you could be dead. He survived. Aside from the obvious pleasure of contemplating heroic swash-bucklery, I don't see how your plan is distinctly superior from the individual's point of view.
Do we know that nobody did rush him? Seems to me that with people diving for cover and so many dying that this could have happened without there even being any witnesses remaining.
JTK:
Nice try, but I'm stayin' out of it. >g<
JTK:
I agree that there's no shame in anyone not thinking, planning, or being prepared for such events.
Just like in many areas, there's a natural division of labor and those who don't pursue such values can benefit, if the time comes, from those who do. And those who do will take on leadership roles and most others will submit themselves to that, as well they probably should.
Of course, here (in a school) we're dealing with a disproportionate number of people with very little life experience or specialized training. In an office building, you're likely to have ex-cops and military who could step up and take the lead.
Well, there may not be an answer here, other than to just stop putting kids in mass institutionalized settings where they're sitting ducks. Yea, school shootings upon school shootings: how come nobody is asking why there's no such shootings in police stations and national guard armories? The answer's too obvious, I guess.
As may be, but presumably Rich has readers who aren't idiots. Could you explain for them the relevance of "the fact of more than one person in at least one of the rooms"? Do you think they'd have acted differently if you'd been in his place?
"Yes. I could."
Rich, do you have an idea what his point is about there being more people in the rooms?
What do you think the relevance is?
Rich,
"I really don't think anyone can know for sure how they would ultimately respond, but I sure do spend some time every now and then thinking through such possible scenarios and how I would react and what I would do. I think taking the time to think through some of this stuff would stand you in much better stead to be in a position to actually think during such an event rather than be paralyzed with fear and terror."
Yes, you would be better off in such a situation. On the other hand there are an unlimited number of potential threats to your life and thus an unlimited number of preparations you could make to preserve your life. Other courses would have you better prepared for other situations.
I think about such things too, and do make such preparations even though to my knowledge not a single person in the last four generations my large family has ever been under fire, except in war. I have no need to second guess those who have chosen to pursue other values instead.
"Well, there may not be an answer here, other than to just stop putting kids in mass institutionalized settings where they're sitting ducks."
I have a son and daughter in college now. Nobody put them there, they chose to go. I think they're far more likely to die in auto accidents than shooting sprees by I wouldn't counsel them to avoid driving. Nor would I advise them to avoid potential shooting galleries like VT. Adults have to manage their own risks.
Nice try, but I'm stayin' out of it. >g<
I guess now we know how you'd react in a firefight>g<
Billy Beck:
He could have been taken by un-armed people. Absolutely no question about it.
I confident that I could shoot you dead from halfway across a room if you were unarmed.
What "sounds reasonable" is in fact based in sheer ignorance.
That's just it – nobody here, including you, knows enough at present to decide what the best course of action would have been.
Then take it up with the author, not me. It was either that or call you an asshole.
Fuck you, Kennedy, and fuck your so-called "values".
DJ:
Which values of JTK's do you mean?
DJ,
"…but if you've got the benefit of numbers, you can and will win if you fight back.
This applies a collective fallacy: You don't have the benefit of numbers, you only choose your own actions. Sure it's best for the group if the group acts collectively, but no individual gets that choice. And while it's best for the group, it's not best for individuals who die that otherwise would have lived.
"I like not such grinning honour as Sir Walter hath: give me life: which if I can save, so; if not, honour comes unlooked for, and there's an end." – Falstaff
I gather at least one of the students survived by playing dead, just as Falstaff did. I don't know that the student had a better option and I don't see how you would know.