Rusted Sky

I think you are painting with a pretty large brush here. This isn't about rap music, for goodness sake.

I think you, as well as many people who've had military training, would probably act. If any of those kids had police or martial arts training, they might have acted. Anyone whose seen combat (and not been brought down by PTSS) would have been more likely to do something.

But for random kids who don't have that background? I think it's harsh to them and to society to claim they were "mentally defenseless" or that they don't have what it takes for heroism.

Dealing with something like a fire or car accident, you see heroism all the time in this country. Gun violence is thankfully so rare that we don't need to be constantly prepared for it. It's so far outside of our experience that it is natural for people confronted with it to "freeze up."

I agree with almost all of your post except the paragraph about the societal cause.

Jerry:

Many gun bloggers have mentioned that a single well aimed round of return fire could have ended this early on, possibly even before any innocent party had to die.

I'd like to say that there would have been no need for even that single round of return fire if the perp knew before hand that there was even a 1% chance that someone in the immediate neighborhood of his intended victim might be armed and able to shoot back.

Otpu

Jason:

I'm using rap as a metaphor for a much more chronic and pernicious problem - a culture that celebrates self-indulgence and a 'feel-good, do it now' mentality and has little to no problem with letting someone else deal with the problems arising from that. A culture where the bad actions of some are deemed much more newsworthy than the good actions of others.

In short - our own.

Sure - you or I wouldn't emulate the VATech shooter's means of gaining 15 minutes of fame - but already there's been 7 states with copycat threats. Of course, we've only had continuious coverage of it for about a day and a half now. There's plenty of time for more.

Are people so easily led, that they'd emulate the bad behaviour of those on TV? Even for kicks?

You tell me.

BTW, saw a guy walking down the street the other day. Very baggy, low-riding pants, inches of boxer short underwear showing per custom - the guy was actually hobbling along, since his pants were so low he couldn't take a full step and he had to hold them up with one hand as he talked on a cell phone with his other hand. His hat was, per regulation, twisted to one side so it shaded neither his neck or his face.

Where'd he get the idea that was a sensible fashion?

I was tempted to stop and ask if he needed to borrow a belt, but he probably wouldn't have appreciated the humor.

We respond to the expectations and examples of the culture around us. When the examples are bad, and no expectations apparent, what will the behaviour be? If the examples are good, and the expectations high, what will the result be?

Take a look at the evening news. Take a look at the front page. Any examples there of good conduct? Any examples there of individual heroism, or even small kindnesses? Of people doing the right thing? It's pretty unlikely - because bad news, bad actions sell while good doesn't.

But then there's the saying "You are what you eat" - and I fear a lot of what we consume from the media is pretty darn unhealthy. And that it may indeed have unintended consequences.

J.

BTW, saw a guy walking down the street the other day. Very baggy, low-riding pants, inches of boxer short underwear showing per custom - the guy was actually hobbling along, since his pants were so low he couldn't take a full step and he had to hold them up with one hand as he talked on a cell phone with his other hand. His hat was, per regulation, twisted to one side so it shaded neither his neck or his face.

If your wife had seen a pack of young men dressed like this while driving your son back from school do you think her first move would have been to make sure the car's doors were locked?

If she had done exactly that and you blogged about it do you think someone would have left a comment here accusing her or maybe you of racist imaginings?

And before anybody does accuse our beloved host of racist imaginings, did you notice that neither he nor I ever identified the young man in question's ethnicity?

otpu

It is time for the People and their States to stop looking for *laws* to solve this problem and join their Constitutional Rights together so as to all cognizant self-organization of Armed Citizens under State Law so that the State, not the Union, may be protected in times of invasion or Danger.

And the only ones who can actually give such organization internal order as a non-standing force are the Armed Citizens, themselves. The States have a Right to Sovereignty within the Union to all things not handed over to the Federal side. To have such autonomy with recognized limits, it behooves the People and their States to start that hard process of keeping a civil society in a civil manner and utilizing the Rights of the People to protect the States when Federal Government fails them, and when the normal course of order breaks down.

In 1787 the States worried about an incapable Federal Government or one that would seek total control. The States have full cognizance to protect themselves as individual States and that is exactly what they had put into the Constitution. It is time to stop passing the buck of protection UP and time to start looking around at those most able and willing to understand Arms and use them. Lawlessness is expecting the State to *protect you*. Lawfulness is knowing the Law and upholding it with one's actions. It is time for the People to give up this foolish notion that the Government can protect you at all times - it most patently cannot and, given the way things are going in this age of asymmetrical warfare called terrorism, it should not have that much power over the People. Our Responsibilities set out in the Constitution are for those named in the Preamble... government has done a damned poor job in securing them for us. As we hold the bag that means the failure is ours, as a People. The object of failure stares at one in the morning from the mirror.

The failure is not weapons - they are mere tools.

The failure is not those who have turned to darkness and embrace death for anything - mankind has had that and will always have that as it cannot be bred from us.

The failure *is* in a Free People not utilizing these things set forth by themselves and continually agreed-upon so as to 'provide for the common defense' and 'form a more perfect Union'. If We the People *ourselves* cannot do that, then we will have no rights, no liberty, no society, because we are unwilling to put meaning behind those words.

We can do lawful things to start that and allow those who utilize Arms in cognizant and lawful fashion to be a backbone to our society. They have a lofty title of 'Citizen'. They are your friends.

Your neighbors.

Your family.

If you cannot trust these fellow Citizens, then we are on a path to destruction of the Land of the Free.

Optu:

"I'd like to say that there would have been no need for even that single round of return fire if the perp knew before hand that there was even a 1% chance that someone in the immediate neighborhood of his intended victim might be armed and able to shoot back."

What are you talking about? Deterrence doesn't work on folks who want to die. Unless you invent some sort of "live another 30 years" gun. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

"They died... not fighting back. Waiting for help. Lined up against a wall and shot - apparently without any thought of rushing the guy."

Turns out, of course, that's wrong. At least one man rushed Cho, and was killed. Many others took action to save themselves or others, by trying to bar entry, by running.

One man, a Holocaust survivor, blocked a door while his students escaped.

Others ran away? Good for them. Don't blame them at all. Have you got a link to the guy who rushed the shooter?

J.

"Deterrence doesn't work on folks who want to die."

True. But that's not the point.

It'll stop the 'casual' shooter, the guy who's looking to steal, maybe kill in the process, because they're wanting to be alive at the end of it. As far as the nutjob who really wants to die - a population of concealed carry-licensed folks will oblige them in their deaths faster. Someone with a concealed weapon can kill them before they can massacre many.

However, that would involve personal responsibility on the part of the concealed-carry licenced. This is something that should be discouraged, since the government should take care of all our safety issues, right?

Also, since we can't determine who wants to die and who doesn't in one of these attacks, we should completely disarm all the law-abiding gun owners, for fear they may take the responsibility in their own hands of shooting someone who is killing other people, which should be rightly reserved for the police or other trusted official...

Despite the fact that a CC-owner might be on the scene, while the police will take much longer to get there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

For another take -

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_04_15-2007_04_21.shtml#1176947872

J.

It'd be nice if there were a perfect solution to this problem, but there isn't. That doesn't mean that IMPERFECT solutions won't help considerably.

The biggest problem I see is a desire for a 'magic bullet' solution that will take care of the problem without anyone ever having to pay attention to it again. You see that in knee-jerk reactions to horrific events - like the Dunblane massacre where the reaction was to ban ALL handguns and rifles in the UK. The result? Crime soared. Handgun murders soared. Yeah, it 'seemed like a good idea at the time', but the aftereffects have been horrible.

On the other hand, you've got Australia after the Port Arthur massacre. It became a felony to own any kind of firearm. Care to guess what happened to the homicide rates and home invasion rates when the guns were removed from the law-abiding?

J.

Jerry, the link, per your request:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802824_pf.html

Almost as if predicted by my first comment on this thread, the guy who confronted Cho was ex-military.

In general, I'm seeing this "lined up against the wall, waiting to die" line all over the right wing blogosphere, but not in any of the news reports. I'm not sure where that came from.

Jason: From your link...

----
Webster ducked to the floor and tucked himself into a ball. He shut his eyes and listened as the gunman walked to the back of the classroom
--------