Gun Control

[PalePower]

In light of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, I have been wondering about the morality behind Americans' right to bear arms. This event had a much more drastic effect on me than other violent disasters that you hear about every day - killings in Iraq, bombings in Europe, people you don't know and really can't imagine all that well, despite how much your sympathy extends to them. Virginia Tech, however, is more or less right around the corner from me. I have friends who attend or are planning to attend there; I know people who know people who were killed in the rampage. It was much too personal and has entirely frightened and sickened me.

It leads me to question why, why in the world something like this could have happened. Blocked from understanding the incomprehensible mentality behind it, my next thought goes to the object that made it possible - his gun.

Should Americans have the right to purchase and hold firearms as long as they're simply old enough?

Many would respond that any restrictions would impede upon our property rights. Or that if we are to place restrictions, what would they be? How would they "prove" that their need of a gun is essential, and who gives us the right to determine that need? What about people who enjoy hunting, or those who want a gun for protection in a dangerous neighborhood? Furthermore, they might argue that it's not the gun that kills, but the person that wields it; and they could just as easily kill people with kitchen knives or a hammer - so should we start restricting those purchases, too?

But I highly doubt that yesterday's assassin could have taken out the number of innocent lives he did were he simply wielding a kitchen knife or his grandfather's old sword. Americans have the right to property, but we also have the right to life - and yesterday, as was proved, that man's right to buy a gun was upheld, but the rights of thirty-two people to Live was grossly denied.

I do not believe that someone should have the right to just waltz into a store and enable themselves to become a killing machine. There is a difference between having the right to buy a stick of gum when you want it, and being able to purchase a gun, whose explicit purpose is to kill other people. They should not be treated the same, and personally, I am all for gun restrictions.

Thoughts?

~Elizabeth

[Matus1976]

In light of the recent Virginia Tech shootings, I have been wondering about the morality behind Americans' right to bear arms. This event had a much more drastic effect on me than other violent disasters that you hear about every day -.... It was much too personal and has entirely frightened and sickened me.

Thanks for your post Elizabeth, I am glad it is in a tone of sincere introspection as this is clearly a complex issue. I have seen this tragedy erupt on many other forums into a pro-gun control or anti-gun control thread almost instantly. But there are very compelling arguments that can be made both ways, as you said, if he had a sword he wouldnt have been able to kill as many people, but conversely, if more people had guns (on another forum I frequent someone posted an article about a bill was proposed in virginia last year to allow students with conceal carry licenses to take their guns on school grounds, it was defeated on grounds of 'safety in our schools), even if the security guards had them, it is possible they could have stopped this much sooner.

Many years ago a cousin of mine's wife and child were killed by their child's best friend, he snuck into their house and took the fathers gun, and waited for the wife and child to come home. He shot each and also the family dog, he never said why he did it and was not a legal adult at the time to the transcripts of the case were never released.

Gun's certainly enable us to kill people much easier, but in doing so they are also a great equializer of humanity. Even the first crossbows in Mideival europe tilted the balance of power back away from feudal lords because the crossbow was cheap, simple, and could pierce armor. People had a way to defend themselves against tyrants. Similiarly today, how might a 5' tall 100lb woman fight off a 7' 300 lb male attacker? A gun makes everyone's size irrelevant, anyone can stop anyone else. Has this ultimately been good for society? I think so.

Pro-gun rights people will present a lot of evidence suggesting that fewer people are actually injured ultimately in a society with friendlier gun ownership laws, because criminals know they face a possible armed retribution, and stastics about gun related deaths never include numbers about how many lives were saved by someone defending themselves with a gun, even if merely showing it. It is likely that many of these cases are not reported. Gun control advocates say that more guns = more crime and more violence and more death. The issue deserves an in depth study and is so politicized that one must be weary of everything they read on it.

But ultimately this is an appeal to utilitirianism, it is considering a social measure good or bad based on the total number of people hurt or not hurt. To me the question is simple, if you have a right to life, you must have a right to materially act in the world to perpetuate that life, thus property rights are a necessary component of any rational ethical system which holds life as its fundamental standard. Concurrently, if you have a right to life, you must have a right to defend yourself against people who wish to take that away from you. To me, that is the only issue, even if, ultimately, more people are hurt in a utilitarian sense (and that is questionable) no government has the right to take the ability of a person to defend themselves against attacks away from them.

[Chris Grieb]

Florida has passed a concealed carry law. There were many predictions that there would be an increase in gun deaths and violence when the law was being debated. Both went down. They have in every state that has passed these laws.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[John Dailey]

~ Then there's an alternate view...

'Gun-Free' zones are safe only for predators

...especially re the effectiveness of the Peter-Pan view of 'gun-control' laws...Anyone is targetable by one filled with rage.

LLAP

J:D

Edited April 18, 2007 by John Dailey

[Chris Grieb]

I suspect Elizabeth would not care for the Objectivist who at a Cato forum made the observation that the best form of gun control was a steady hand. Elizabeth this clown at Virginia Tech violated so many gun control laws as did the Columbine killers.

[Kat]

I realize that most Objectivists and Libertarians are pro-gun. I'm not. There are just too many irrational people in this world who should not have access to them. I certainly do not know the answer, but some controls are in order. I don't have a big problem with being able to have one in your home or business for protection. I do have a problem with people being able to get enough ammo to go on a rampage.

Kat

[Rodney]

I'm in favor of weapons for all adults, as long as they are of a type reasonable for self-defense purposes (no bazookas or A-bombs).

The possibility that numerous bystanders--all of whom are law-abiding--may be armed would be a powerful crime deterrent. Ceteris paribus, the good always wins, as Atlas Shrugged taught us.

[Danneskjold]

Lets pretend that every professor at Virginia Tech had a firearm and was trained in its use. How well does that school shooting go now?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One thing is for sure. The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is self-defense. The right of a citizen to bear arms is intimately tied to the issue of the right to self defense. The downside is that the evil people get the right to buy guns and some people are just plain careless, so they are a walking disaster about to happen with a gun in their hands.

This leads to an interesting contention. If the right to self-defense is removed from a person within a geographical location by a governing entity, it is reasonable to transfer the responsibility of defending that person from physical attack to the governing entity.

Armed protection (including the police force) was provided to an extent on the VA Tech campus, enough to halt the massacre, but it was not enough to avoid it or minimize it.

I don't have a gun right now here in the USA, but I favor having the right of immediate action to protect myself and those I love—even with the prospect of making life easier for the evil and the careless.

Michael

[Rodney]

But that's just it. It doesn't make it easier for them, but harder.

[Danneskjold]

He's right. It does make it harder. For one, the person who shot up VT wasn't allowed to have that gun, it was illegally obtained. Since it was illegally obtained it probably wouldn't matter if there were more laws, if he was willing to go around that one he could go around plenty of other ones. For two, places with legalized concealed carry actually have the amount of crime including gun deaths go down. This is epitomized by a commercial I saw for a tv show. The guy was sitting in a car with this girl who was interviewing him for a school article (I think he was a defense attorney or something, I don't know) she asked him, "what do you think of robbing unarmed people?" (Why this was a question I don't know) he replied, "Well it's a whole lot smarter than robbing armed people."

If you think there's a reasonable chance that a person owns a gun you're going to be a whole lot less likely to rob them.

Experiment for anyone who wants to see if a person having a chance of owning a gun is a crime deterrent: put a sign out front of your house or any house in a mid-lower class neighborhood saying, "There is no gun in this house" see if that house is more or less likely to be robbed than any other house in an area with similar demographics.

[Rodney]

Of course, it doesn't mean that everyone will start to carry a gun. I don't think I would. And the deterrent effect would make it less necessary as time went on.

[Dragonfly]

I realize that most Objectivists and Libertarians are pro-gun. I'm not. There are just too many irrational people in this world who should not have access to them. I certainly do not know the answer, but some controls are in order. I don't have a big problem with being able to have one in your home or business for protection. I do have a problem with people being able to get enough ammo to go on a rampage.

I think in a civilized society people should have no access to them, except for special purposes. I don't believe the endlessly repeated argument that there are less killings when people have easy access to firearms. I've lived for many decades in a country where gun ownership is prohibited and where the homicide rate has always been a small fraction of that in the USA, and I think that also applies to a lot of European countries, so that argument is hardly convincing. We are here amazed at the fanatism with which Americans defend their right to have firearms. Even while the situation here has deteriorated in recent years the overwhelming majority of the population is absolutely against free access to firearms, as practically nobody sees them as a solution to our problems.

[PalePower]

For one, the person who shot up VT wasn't allowed to have that gun, it was illegally obtained. Since it was illegally obtained it probably wouldn't matter if there were more laws, if he was willing to go around that one he could go around plenty of other ones.

Jeff, the gun was not illegally obtained. This Cho guy walked into a store and bought the gun. Paraphrasing one ABC newscaster, everything about Cho's conduct was perfectly legal up until the killings. Which is the big problem I have. We give killers and maniacs everything they need to carry out their sick fantasies - and, for the most part, the only thing that's stopping them is our faith in their choice not to.

Personally, that doesn't make me feel very safe.

The possibility that numerous bystanders--all of whom are law-abiding--may be armed would be a powerful crime deterrent. Ceteris paribus, the good always wins, as Atlas Shrugged taught us.

A crime-deterrent? All of these arguments are based on the assumption that the potential killers are acting under a rational basis! That they still possess common reasoning faculties! That the idea that life is still a value to them! It obviously is not! Cho killed HIMSELF -- so many of these shooters kill themselves. They take their lives by their own hands; I do not buy into the idea that they will ultimately decide not to do anything because of the fear of death.

Also, Rodney, no offense, but the good does not always win, at least short-term. Would you say that good prevailed and evil perished on Monday the 16th? Hardly. Atlas Shrugged taught us lots of things; one of the things it did not teach (or shouldn't have taught) us is that we should live our lives like a benevolent author is determining their fates.

As Rand identified, it is the right of the government to physically protect its citizens. This includes rendering our potential enemies impotent. I want something more substantial between me and my impending death than the capricious will of a psychopath.

~Elizabeth

[Brant Gaede]

I realize that most Objectivists and Libertarians are pro-gun. I'm not. There are just too many irrational people in this world who should not have access to them. I certainly do not know the answer, but some controls are in order. I don't have a big problem with being able to have one in your home or business for protection. I do have a problem with people being able to get enough ammo to go on a rampage.

I think in a civilized society people should have no access to them, except for special purposes. I don't believe the endlessly repeated argument that there are less killings when people have easy access to firearms. I've lived for many decades in a country where gun ownership is prohibited and where the homicide rate has always been a small fraction of that in the USA, and I think that also applies to a lot of European countries, so that argument is hardly convincing. We are here amazed at the fanatism with which Americans defend their right to have firearms. Even while the situation here has deteriorated in recent years the overwhelming majority of the population is absolutely against free access to firearms, as practically nobody sees them as a solution to our problems.

How's Switzerland doing, with citizens having automatic weapons in their homes?

Dragonfly, yours is a very European attitude and as an American I am just as amazed by it as the Europeans are at moi.

I own a .357 Colt Python Magnum revolver, which is a souped up .38 (which is actually .357 in caliber) and a semi-automatic Ruger .22 cal rifle with fifty round clips. The .22 is just for fun. Eventually I will own a 12 gauge pump shotgun for home defense. I can legally here in Arizona strap on the .357 without a permit and take it out in public, which is a felony in New York City. One reason I left the Northeast is the restrictive gun laws there.

When I came back from Vietnam where I handled all sorts of light weapons including mortars and grenade launchers, I went to a department store in Tucson, AZ and purchased the .357. I carried it with me almost everywhere I went for six or seven months, but that was just a wind-down from combat.

One reason I survived Vietnam is I never let anybody get an advantage on me. I was almost killed when a superior put me and himself into a dangerous, unnecessary situation. The bullet that killed him was almost between the eyes. I think it's because of my combat experiences and training that I'm much more hyped up about these things than even most American members of the National Rifle Association. But today I don't go around armed, for when I do I'm always thinking about the damned gun. I have other ways of staying out of trouble. For my home, though, breaking in is a fool's game. But again, I have tricks to keep the fools away and a dog that barks.

There will come a time when the countries that have disarmed their citizens will come to regret it. Countries like England and Australia. Under America's protection for so many generations they have lost their mettle. If those 15 British Marines had been Americans those Iranians would have been dead meat. And can you believe how they collaborated with their captors?

America is a warrior, kick-ass nation. That actually may be a bad thing considering all its wars and consequences to this day, but it's part of our history and culture with its individualism and freedom and moralism and expansionist ethos. Ayn Rand, from Europe, never really completely understood this. Every time Washington passed a stupid law in "Atlas Shrugged" the "Americans" caved in to the power of the state. Americans went to Europe twice in the last century and kicked German ass. Hell, they kicked their own asses in the Civil War.

Etc. (Rant and rave.)

--Brant

Edited April 18, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Judith]

Well said, Brant.

I just got back from the NRA convention last weekend. I was sitting on a bench, exhausted, in the exhibit hall surrounded by all kinds of firearms, knives, you name it. I was in "condition white" (zoned out; fair game for any predator) and a security guard walked by and said, "Did you see him? Tom Selleck just walked by with an entourage of about 4 or 5 security guys!" I had to admit that I hadn't seen him. I realized that I felt safe enough to sit there zoned out in "condition white" because I was at an NRA convention, surrounded by some of the very best people in the world: gun owners. People who know right from wrong. People who wouldn't think of harming me. People who would jump to my defense if anyone did dare to threaten me.

Last January I was training out west and one of my classmates told me I was a sheepdog. For further explanation, he referred to the following article, which he sent me at my request. When I read it, I was highly honored.

Judith

----------------------------------------------------------------

Jill Edwards is one of the students at the University of Washington who did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg Boyington because she does not think those who serve in the U.S. Armed services are good role models. I think that this response is an excellent and thought provoking response. General Dula is an Air Force 3 Star retired. Gen. Dula's letter to the University of Washington student senate leader.

To: Edwards, Jill (student, UW)

Subject: Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Miss Edwards, I read of your 'student activity' regarding the proposed memorial to Col Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive a bellyful of angry e-mails from conservative folks like me. You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your naivety. It may be that you are, simply, a sheep. There's no dishonor in being a sheep -- as long as you know and accept what you are. Please take a couple of minutes to read the following. And be grateful for the thousands -- millions -- of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.

Brett Dula

Sheepdog, retired

----------------------------------------------------------

ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself.

The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for?

What is worth living for?

- William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime.

But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million. Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation.

They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.

But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs. Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers -- athletes, business people and parents -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.

- Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones. I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?" It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.

Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth. Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less", his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

"If It Weren't For The United States Military" "There Would Be NO United States of America"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Speaking of training, where did that bastard learn how to shoot?

You don't take out 30 people in one place like he did without knowing what you are doing and practicing.

Michael

[Judith]

One of the things that irritates me about the entire "gun control" discussion is that people sit around passively wringing their hands expecting "someone" to protect them from imponderable risks. If you want to be safe, do something. And that something shouldn't entail preventing me from protecting myself.

Here are two exellent articles written by Mark Steyn and James Bowman that I found today on National Review that echo my thoughts very well:

Judith

________________________________

A Culture of Passivity

"Protecting" our "children" at Virginia Tech.

By Mark Steyn

National Review

April 18, 2007 12:44 PM

I haven't weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on. But I was giving a couple of speeches in Minnesota yesterday and I was asked about it and found myself more and more disturbed by the tone of the coverage. I'm not sure I'm ready to go the full Derb but I think he's closer to the reality of the situation than most. On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our "children" need to be "protected."

Point one: They're not "children." The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you'll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are "children" if they're serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton's Oval Office. Nonetheless, it's deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a "horrible" world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

Point two: The cost of a "protected" society of eternal "children" is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the "Montreal massacre," the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you'd never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The "men" stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn't meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals. And a few months later as Richard Reid bent down and tried to light his shoe in that critical split-second even the French guys leapt up and pounded the bejasus out of him.

We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom's security blanket. Geraldo-like "protection" is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won't be there to protect you. You'll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say "we don't know what we'd do under the same circumstances", we make cowardice the default position.

I'd prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.

-------------------------------------------

We Need More Heroes

Spiderman is not going to save us. Liviu Librescu may.

By James Bowman

National Review

April 18, 2007 6:45 AM

Reacting to what many in Britain and elsewhere are regarding as the disgraceful behavior while in captivity of the British sailors and marines kidnapped by the Iranians, Simon Heffer recently wrote in the London Daily Telegraph: "Why are some so weak-minded compared with those 18- year-olds who, within living memory, went over the top on the Somme, or splashed through machine-gun fire onto the Normandy beaches?" Heffer himself belongs to the "I-blame-the-parents" school of thought on this matter — though he also thinks that the responsibility of the older generation for bringing up kids like the young sailor who was unashamed to confess that he had cried himself to sleep at night because his iPod had been confiscated and his Iranian captors had called him "Mr Bean" extends beyond his parents. Presumably neither they nor any teachers or culture-bearers ever taught Mr. Bean that any considerations of honor or morality ought to take precedence over his own feelings.

Heffer's question could also be asked, I think, about the Virginia Tech students who fled as the Korean gunman, Cho Seung Hui, went on his homicidal rampage on their campus Monday — or who, like Jamal Albarghouti, instead of fleeing, took out their cell phones to record the sights and sounds of the massacre. "This is what this YouTube-Facebook-instant messaging generation does," reported the Washington Post of Albarghouti's exploit as if it were a matter for pride: "Witness. Record. Share." And, as the Post might have added, not fight back. It appears to have occurred to no one to do that. Or even to wonder whether or not it might have been desirable to do that. "You are one brave guy Jamal," wrote someone on his Facebook site after his video had run on CNN.com. But the idea that any greater bravery than his might have been possible — the kind of bravery that could have saved lives by taking down the gunman earlier in his murderous career — is one that seems not to have been picked up on the LCDs of the YouTube-Facebook-instant-messaging generation.

One clear hero of the day seems to have been someone from quite another generation, a 76-year-old Romanian-Jewish immigrant and Holocaust survivor named Liviu Librescu who taught engineering science and mathematics at the university and who barricaded the door of his classroom with his body long enough to allow a number of his students to escape out the windows. When the shooter eventually burst into the room, he shot Librescu and the two students who had not yet managed to get out. "My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," said the hero's son, Joe Librescu, from Israel where he lives. "Students started opening windows and jumping out." Someone posted on the God Bless Virginia Tech blog that was set up as an early student response to the shootings: "What a wonderful man, a survivor, and a hero. He will be missed!"

That detail, by the way, comes from a story in the Times of London headed, "Virginia Tech professor hailed as a hero." Back in the U.S.A., however, there was not nearly so much hailing going on as you (or the Times) might think. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times on Tuesday mentioned Professor Librescu's act of courage and self-sacrifice in passing, but neither made a point of distinguishing him from the other victims who were apparently killed without resisting. Perhaps like Paul Greengrass's film, United 93, the American media is rather embarrassed by heroism and thinks it insulting to the other victims of such atrocities to single out the heroes for special attention. Instead of showing any interest in Librescu's brave act, the American media were concentrating to the point of obsession on the feelings of the victims and the psychology of the killer. "Evil, that's what some call it," wrote Neely Tucker in the Style section of the Post, handsomely acknowledging millennia of religious tradition before going on to note that psychology would prefer to use terms like "depressed, angry and humiliated" to describe the perpetrator of mass murder. How much more interesting are the feelings even of a monster than the deeds of a hero!

Do you suppose that this could have anything to do with the paucity of heroes among the younger generation? Simon Heffer suggests later in his article that the British ministry of defense should provide members of the armed forces with DVDs of old movies like The Colditz Story, The Cruel Sea, One of Our Aircraft Is Missing, or Carve Her Name with Pride before sending them into action. It's a reminder that the culture once paid more attention to heroes and acts of heroism than to either suffering victims or psychotic killers. Not coincidentally, I think, acts of heroism were a lot more frequent in those days. Nowadays all we have are superheroes — either the acknowledged kind, like Spider-Man, the third installment of whose celluloid history is due in cinemas next month, or the unacknowledged kind like James Bond, the DVD of whose umpteenth outing went on sale last month. But superheroes are immortal and nearly invulnerable, which makes them very watchable — like Albarghouti's video — but worthless as a model for young men to emulate.

Maybe no one could have stopped the madman from getting his full budget of murders, but it seems to me a lot more likely that someone would have done so if the media and the movies of today ever offered us any examples of real heroism untinged by ambiguity, doubt, or moral compromise. And is it too far-fetched to wonder whether there might not also be fewer delusional killers in the first place if we lived in a culture less devoted to fantasy, a culture of more heroes and fewer superheroes? Oh, and lest you think I exaggerate the malign influence of the superhero, just look at the page following Tucker's article on the psychology of mass murder. There you will find a little item in the Post's gossip column, "The Reliable Source," about the departure from Washington of the actor, Nicolas Cage, who had been filming a movie there. It reminds us that Cage and his wife, Alice, have named their small son Kal-El, after the name of Superman's Kryptonian father. What do you suppose are the chances of that poor child's turning into a real hero?

—James Bowman is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and author of Honor: A History.

[Brant Gaede]

Speaking of training, where did that bastard learn how to shoot?

You don't take out 30 people in one place like he did without knowing what you are doing and practicing.

Michael

A few hours of training is all he needed.

If he had been in law enforcement or the military, weeks and months or more.

The terrorists who flew those planes on 9-11 didn't know how to land them or deal with in flight emergencies or even navigate very well. They weren't really pilots. Hell, they didn't even know how to take off!

Destruction is easier than construction. False science easier than real science. There is more bullshit in the world than truth. This is the impotence of evil.

--Brant

Edited April 19, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Judith]

Speaking of training, where did that bastard learn how to shoot?

You don't take out 30 people in one place like he did without knowing what you are doing and practicing.

Michael, it was easier than shooting fish in a barrel. There was no resistance. The victims were not trained and not resisting. He needed no training whatsoever; he could have picked up the gun from the store and gone right out and done it had he so desired.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

That's all he needed, Judith, but he used a two-handed stance implying he had some training, even if only self-training.

--Brant

[Judith]

That's all he needed, Judith, but he used a two-handed stance implying he had some training, even if only self-training.

Granted; that's not what Michael asked, though. Basic stance can be learned from many sources -- books, the internet, etc.

Judith

[Wrighty]

There will come a time when the countries that have disarmed their citizens will come to regret it. Countries like England and Australia. Under America's protection for so many generations they have lost their mettle. If those 15 British Marines had been Americans those Iranians would have been dead meat. And can you believe how they collaborated with their captors?

--Brant

Mmmmm.....I see the "special relationship" is in safe hands

1996:

Thomas Hamilton, aged 43, a disgraced former Scout master whose behaviour had attracted the attention of the police, turned one of his four guns on himself after killing or injuring all but one of a class of 29 five- and six-year-olds at Dunblane primary school, near Stirling.

1987:

On Wednesday 19 August 1987, the historic market town of Hungerford, Berkshire, was turned into a bloodbath with sixteen people shot to death and another fourteen injured, eight of them seriously. The butchery ended only when the gunman, twenty-seven-year-old Michael Ryan, was cornered in a school and turned the gun on himself.

If losing our mettle has reduced the further risk of these horrors taking place in the UK, then I'm glad our (then) governments acted (or reacted) swiftly. The tightening of our gun laws following these two events may not have stopped gun crime per se, but it has taken the guns out of the hands of the psychopaths.

I have great respect for sovereignty and understand that a nation is inextricably linked to its constitution. Consequently I consider it is highly unlikely that there will be changes to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution even 200 years on. I admire the US in many, many respects and consider them our greatest (non Commonwealth) ally........but whatever your troops' roles are in policing the world, ours are just slightly different.

The direction of policies under the Blair government leave a lot to be desired I know - but I am saddened that you feel that the people of your Country's staunchest supporter and ally should be held up to ridicule in such a way.

Often one can see a bigger picture if one steps back from the centre of the universe.

[John Dailey]

~ I'm all for 'gun-free' zones, including towns and cities...IF, and ONLY IF...believably adequate security patrols exist. Where such can't be afforded, 'gun-free' has meaning only for the sitting ducks there awaiting the next crazy/suicider who reaches their 'snap'-moment (or follows someone's dogma), whether we all be in a mall, campus, etc. --- As an aside, such 'snappers' go farther back...in America...than Columbine; plus, they're really not as frequent as the media innuends as a 'crisis' (and the rest of the world thinks.)

~ If even one teacher or student in that 2nd building were (ok, 'legally'; ntl, regardless...) packin', I think a few families would be thanking them...instead of holding memorial services.

LLAP

J:D

PS: Regardless the above, the likes of Liviu is a rare 'fighter' who gives new meaning to 'weaponless fighting.' He should be the main idea and person remembered from this sorry debacle of campus sheep waiting to be slaughtered at a sick predator's whim.

[Judith]

~ I'm all for 'gun-free' zones, including towns and cities...IF, and ONLY IF...believably adequate security patrols exist.

And therein lies the problem. How much are people willing to pay "security patrols" to do their work for them? No security is really adequate. No patrols can be everywhere constantly unless every individual has about two or three bodyguards apiece. No one will ever care about you as much as you do.

If you talk to an honest police officer, he or she will tell you that they really can't prevent crime; all they can do is clean up the mess afterwards.

Judith