This post certainly rates in your top ten Dafydd.

I have to read it a couple of times before I venture forth with any comments, if then, as none seem necessary at the moment.

Dafydd; You are not up to your usual standards. It is "rolling food cart," not "rolling rood cart." And it is the Congressional Medal of Honor and not within the power of the president to award, although I do agree that it would be proper to award it to Prof. Librescu in this instance. Having said that, your basic premise is correct and we are all responsible for our own and our country's and fellow man's safety.
I think Bill Whittle said it well with his essay called Tribes, in which he posited that there are sheep and there are wolves. Sadly there were not enough wolves at Virginia Tech yesterday who were in the right place. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Whittle, you can read him at ejectejecteject.com On the right side of the page scroll down to "Tribes." And Dafydd, although I may be wrong, I would think you have read his essays. I also think that people who enjoy your blog would enjoy his writings. Both of you make many of the same points.

Dafydd, rest assured that now is exactly the time to address this issue, and you've not crossed any lines of decency. From sorrowful experience, I would say that any family or friends of the dead in Virginia would be looking for SOME good to come of this awful situation, and pointing out the flaws in our society that encouraged the level of distruction in order to FIX those flaws is exactly the solution to the problem.

I live a charmed life... I'm surrounded by men AND WOMEN who have jumped up from the table to address what was assumed to be a gunman in a restraunt... it was actually kind of funny that we were all getting in each other's way in order to get to him. It turned out that there was no gun threat, and seeing nearly a dozen eager people rushing to assist the intended target stilled ANY desire for him to continue. Yes we were armed. No, no bullets were fired. Hands were on grips, but I don't even think any weapons were actually drawn.

But the Lesson? Do not ever threaten our waitress. ;)

But seriously, remember that phrase? That phrase that sounded so good the first few days it brought tears to your eyes, and then it was denigraded as "Corny" or "Cowboy" or something untoward. People started to shy away from it, because it was not 'nice'. The phrase was "Let's Roll".

"Let's Roll". It means that we WILL no longer sit quietly while the enemy attacks. It means that we WILL jump to defend ourselves and others. It means that we WON'T wait for 'professionals' to arrive and maybe do it for us.

When a mugger is after your $20, going along with his threats is reasonable. What's it going to cost you, $20? You've got $20. Minor pain. You can address the Justice part later.

When a shooter is after your life, and the lives of others around you, going along with his threats is irrational. In the past, as Sachi's example shows, it would cost you nothing, maybe some time. Now it will not only cost YOUR life, but the lives of many others.

With the mugger, it's your live versus $20. On the Virginia Tech Campus, on flight 93, and in the future in this type of situation, there is a lot more at stake.

The problem isn't that they didn't fight the shooter, they didn't fight the University. Virginia Tech and the State of Virginia took away their rights and abilities to carry protective firearms, and yet did nothing to step in to fill the vacuum. When it came to defend themselves against a shooter, all they HAD was their bodies... an effective delaying action, but against a projectile weapon it is not really an effective means of attack. Sure we'll fall back on it, or we should... but we shouldn't HAVE to.

We need to fight back any time the "Powers that Be" proclaim that we should go unprotected. We shouldn't wait until we are being shot at.

Fritz:

Thanks for noting the tyop; I corrected it.

But I believe you're in error about the Medal of Honor:

1. Its official name is the Medal of Honor; Congressional Medal of Honor is a colloquialism, because...
2. It is awarded by the president, but in the name of the Congress. Members of Congress can recommend MoHs, but so can any CO in the service.

Dafydd

The greater issue is that, by fighting back against evil, the students, faculty, and staff at Virginia Tech would have fired the shot heard round the world, the meme that "fighting back is always an option." Whenever such a massacre is aborted by extraordinary courage on the part of ordinary people, we send the message that good men (and women) must do something to prevent the triumph of evil.

The problem is getting that message out Daffyd.

Here is the story of

Appalachian School of Law shooting

That was only 5 years ago.

Students subdued Odighizuwa When Odighizuwa exited the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms.[4]

At the first sound of gunfire, fellow students Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to fetch their personally owned firearms.[5] Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a bulletproof vest and a 9 mm pistol.[6] Bridges pulled his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevy Tahoe. As Bridges later told the Richmond Times Dispatch, he was prepared to shoot to kill.[7]

Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[8] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by a third student, Ted Besen, who was unarmed.[9] Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

Police reports later noted that two empty eight round magazines belonging to Odighizuwa’s handgun were recovered. When Odighizuwa dropped his gun, it still had a magazine holding three rounds of ammunition within it.[10]

Dafydd; I suppose the president, as Commander in Chief, could nominate someone for the medal and send it through the proper channels.
Normally a request for the Medal of Honor is done, as you state, by someone in the chain of command. And as you also note, a nomination may also come from congress by an act of congress. In the end, the final recommendation for the medal is done by the secretary of defense and the president can approve or disapprove, but he cannot arbitrarily award it. There are also a number of people who have to approve it before it can reach the secretary of defense. As you pointed out in your article, he can award the Medal of Freedom, but he only presents the Medal of Honor in the name of congress. I am guilty of being less than succinct in my first post, for which I apologize.

I don't think I can agree with the comparison to the British sailors and marines who were captured by the Iranians, Dafydd. In the one case you have armed military personnel who should have training and inclination for battle; in the other case, you have unarmed college kids who have been trained all their lives to be passive and unresisting when confronted by an attacker: the 9/10/2001 airplane passenger mindset.

We have lived in a country and in a time period where we don't all have to be Spartans (to use a recent movie metaphor) in our training or philosophical outlook. We should be grateful that as Americans we had such a time of peace, and that we were able to enjoy it. Presumably events for the near future will demand tougher Americans than we are at present.

I think you misinterpret Dean Barnett's comments. I believe he is referring to the truth, even states it directly, that there is no government solution to this problem. Indeed, it is the very essence of liberal government to deny that evil exists, or that government cannot make us absolutely safe in all ways. That fellow Saddam was just misunderstood. We should have just talked it through with him. And Sheikh bin Laden? We just need to find out why he hates us so much that he wants us all to die a horrific death, and then we can change-- we will! Then he will love us, go back to chasing camels and the world will be wonderful. Yeah, right.

Evil exists, and you cannot placate it. It must be attacked and defeated, by governments AND by individuals. It understands nothing less.

I blame Teletubbification of the mind. It's an insidious gift from the British.

I agree with you that one has to respond to such situations for the good of the greater society. Ah, such an old fashioned idea. Sacrifice? Anyway, when I got home after 9/11 from a meeting near DC, I loaded my firearms and carried one. I live in a rural area on a major highway paralleling I 95. I felt a bit foolish, but we didn’t know what to expect and there are our own home grown nuts who might want to take advantage of the situation. There are no State Police stations closer than 20 miles away. I have yet to be in a major situation as at VT, but those I have been witness to and attempted to intervene in, I have received no, I repeat, NO help from others. You are certainly more hopeful than I about our country.

Great post, Dafydd.

I wrote more but deleted it -- it's a subject that requires considerable thought. We have to figure out far better ways to protect ourselves from the unintended consequences of technological advancements that inch us ever more in the direction of the cowardly instinct to be sheep who require a shepherd.

Dafydd:

I didn’t want to leave this (long) note in your comments, because the thoughts are not well-formed enough for public consumption, and I would rather be embarrassed privately than publicly. Alas, I can’t find an email for you, and I thought you would have something important to say about my ill-formed thoughts. I must tell you that I was especially glad to read what you had to say this morning, as your post almost exactly parallels an internal conversation as well as a discussion I had with my momma yesterday about the reasons for inaction by many VaTech students and teachers when confronted by one hostile male. Both the internal and external discussions began to center on this question: why it is that as individuals making up part of a group confronted with danger, we evaluate our strength differently than if we were alone and confronted with the same hostile danger? Let me see if I can explain myself.

The “fighting back is not an option” I don’t think is a new phenomena of American, Western, or even human society. I think it has been around forever, but the tools for describing it analytically and psychologically are only relatively recent, as are the means by which we all learn about it happening.

While there are many, many examples of human groups being passive in the face of danger, the classic case that was used to describe the group dynamic is the Kitty Genovese case in New York City in 1964—this case may be very relevant to the VaTech situation, and other similar small group situations, including hostage situations. Here individuals did not act when a young woman was sexual assaulted and killed over a period of 30 minutes in full view of neighbors—they did not intervene, nor did they call police for assistance or lend assistance in any way. This case gave rise to the psychological syndrome described as the “bystander effect” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect )which identified the phenomena of individuals not acting when they form part of a group compared to the action normally taken when these same people are alone.

When my momma and I discussed this, she said she did not think that there had ever been an identification of the underlying and fundamental reasons why individuals in a group are less likely to act than if they are alone. Numerous explanations have been advanced such as the “diffusion of responsibility”, but why is it that we are more inclined to act strong and decisive when vulnerable and alone, but we act like sheep in a group? Why does being in a group, which numerically and physically should make us strong, actually make us behave as if weak? Has this been addressed in a fundamental way, because I have to wonder if this is a generalized human behavioral characteristic, a social/cultural characteristic, or is it something else, or a combination of factors? From your post and all the comments, it is clear that you and others too see this group dynamic as counter-intuitive and inexplicable behavior.

This gets us to Flight 93, and why the people on that plane acted differently than passengers on other planes, or acted in a manner that actually may be an anomaly in this group danger dynamic. What accounts for this group behavior anomaly?

(1) Time?—Flight 93 passengers had time for individual leadership characteristics to overcome the group stasis and “reflex” group dynamic of inaction. How long does that take to happen in an untrained civilian group (one without an individual present with military, law-enforcement or emergency response training)?

(2) Information?---there was adequate and conclusive information available to some passengers on their specific circumstance as part of a wider situation that contradicted the belief that danger could be averted by inaction.

But here, I think the lesson of Flight 93 and 9/11 on all airline passengers has been absorbed—what are the chances now of passengers (particularly American passengers) responding to a hijacking with inaction? How many instances have we already seen since 9/11 across the world where swift response on the part of a passenger group has thwarted some real or perceived danger from escalating, or even gaining a measure of traction? I don’t think any human trait has changed that much since 9/11, but certainly our perception of the intrinsic danger and what we have tacitly decided is the appropriate response has changed. Think about it—Americans in this instant at least appear to be very good one trial learners. But is this paradigm shift situation dependent? Are we more apt to defend ourselves on an airplane than we are in a classroom, even if both are threatened by terrorists or the equivalent?

Personally, I see that Americans (more so than Europeans) are learning broader lessons in our current and very recent civilian threat environment, and that maybe the “by-stander” effect is slowly losing its strangle hold when certain factors or dangers are present. With respect to the VaTech case, there are those who acted (whether by escape or hindering the shooter in some way), and those who did not. And no, it didn’t help at all that the group(s) was unarmed. From a situational perspective, the lone psycho shooter has usually been viewed as distinct from a terrorist attack, but I think that has begun to change with this particular mass murder, and how we correlate this case with instances that are described as “sudden jihad”. Lone psycho shooters have always been rare, but publicly horrific. Now, we are discussing the real possiblity that the threat of a lone psycho can be viewed the same as that posed by a terrorist bent on death and destruction.

I happen to see the VaTech case as distinctly different from the British Iranian hostage case for one simple reason: the VaTech case involved untrained, and yes, unarmed civilians, whereas the British hostage case involved armed and trained (however ineffective) military. Frankly, I see the two situations as saying more about the Brits and the entrenchment within that society as a whole of the “by-stander effect” (socialism?) even in their trained personnel than I do about the sheepishness of American college students and professors. But the behavior of both groups certainly provides intelligence to terrorists and lone or a small squad killers bent on high value situational death and destruction.

So here are the questions that to me remain to be answered, theoretically and practically, so that Americans and other populations, nations/societies and groups are better prepared to act decisively to limit or negate a present danger, whether that is from terrorists or lone psychos:

(1) How much time is required to effectively overcome the passive tendency when part of an untrained civilian group in danger? Is time the most critical variable in surmounting group passivity, or is it something else? If something else, what is that?

(2) What individual characteristic(s) is/are necessary, or sufficient to most quickly overcome a group’s passivity in the face of danger? In conjunction, what is the group dynamic/characteristic that is the most difficult to overcome for effective action to occur?

(3) What is the most effective and efficient way to minimize this danger response time in an untrained civilian group?

(4) To what extent are these critical individual and group characteristics present in different populations of nations, cultures and/or societies, and how are we as Americans and Westerners best able to maximize or preserve the appropriate individual characteristics necessary/sufficient to overcome a passive group dynamic?

I have seen a number of posts on various parts of the issues you have raised, and frankly most have been very muddled by political issues (pro/con gun control; pro/con on institutionalization of likely psychos, etc.), and don’t address what to me are the fundamental behavioral questions about how we can best compensate as mostly untrained civilians for the group dynamic. I do believe that there are social/cultural/political characteristics that increase or lessen this “by-stander effect,” but perhaps I am deluded in thinking that we as Americans might have an easier time unlearning or re-educating or disengaging ourselves from the reflex of passive group behavior when we are in danger. I say this because I see Americans as still very individualistic, we are still mostly armed (or like to think of ourselves as armed with wit and ingenuity even when lacking a deadly weapon), and we still place a high value on life and liberty when confronted with imminent threat.

I remember a late-night b/w British film about a kidnapped young girl. Escape efforts seemed fruitless, but she whispered to herself, "I have to try." It seemed not heroic, but something the character would have taken for granted.

Somehow, too many of us have less of the overcomer-of-threat than I believe we used to. Oddly, a generation of the permissively raised seem more cowed than those of whom a fairly authoritarian obedience was required. In addition, among college-age students I've seen in Austin, there seems to be a certain tribalism, an agreement that no one will individually criticize what is happening (except to censure "intolerance"), that there is little percentage in standing out or testing an idea, and that there will not necessarily be any independent-thinking allies.

All anecdotal of course. But the impression is strong.

I can't see a correlation between the Brits and VT students, although I see the point you are trying to make.

It is unknowable to most people what they would really do in a similar situation. I remember after the September 11 attacks wondering what I would have done had I been on one of those planes- would I have rallied a similar mantra of "Let's roll" or just sat there with a pre-9/11 mindset knowing it was just some crazy assholes who wanted attention?

Today I am quite certain of what I would do. A similar 'what-if" came to mind when I read about the students who were lined up and then shot execution style. If I had been anywhere in that line after the first shot, knowing my fate would be similar, then that would have been the only shot fired before I would jump up and try to distract/disarm that lunatic. I would rather take a bullet to the face then the back of the head.

But who really knows? Adrenaline and shock can be a vicious ally or a paralyzing fiend. Again, like withe the Brits, it becomes a coulda, woulda, shoulda. As we watched the events unfold we want to believe we would be the Wesley Snipes on the airplane or the Bruce Willis in the building. Most people neither get the training to deal with these scenaios nor really even think about what to do when it could happen.

Everyone who analyzes this tragedy with a cool head knows that there is no way to prevent something like this from happening. The State did a quick analysis here in HI and figured it owuld take an extra $1.2M to provide armed guards at campuses- a knee jerk reaction to make people think that this is an epidemic. The anti-gun people were also out in droves.

The one constant in all the campus shooting is that you cannot rely on law enforcement to protect you. They might get the guy in the end but in the interim you have to rely on yourself or the few brave people, like Professor Librescu, who realize that assholes with guns will not stand. He cannot recieve the Medal of Honor because of his civilian status, however it is human nature to recognize and award ordinary people who do extraordinary things. I think he should get the highest civilian award the President can give. Hell, there are hundreds of people from the attacks on Sept. 11 that should get it too. More importantly, his actions should be an example of how to handle yourself when faced with one of the worst kinds of evil imaginable.

Great post.

I agree that the students at VT had a responsibility to try to defend themselves -- and one-another -- that is similar to the duty of the British sailors to resist being captured, but there is one difference that you should note: The sailors came out without a scratch but the students at VT took heavy casualties. Even if you think that it was the responsibility of the students to subdue the gunman or die trying we simply don't have enough information to know for sure that Matthew La Porte, a member of the VT Corps of Cadets, did not do exactly that. We know he died, but we don't know what he was doing at the time. We may never know.

Dafydd:

Ace has a post up about the issue of passivity as well, here http://ace.mu.nu/archives/223275.php and his analysis of action versus inaction seems to rely on evaluating how the potential action of the group provides a level of confidence in a future outcome of safety. But I still have to ask, if Ace's take is correct, then how much time is necessary to acquire this confidence in the future outcome, and what personal characteristics of the actors involved assist with gaining such confidence in the outcome? And how do we as civilians make sure we have the essential tools of character ready to implement in a dangerous situation so we don't fail?

Mark Steyn wrote this morning about the behavior of men in the Montreal lone psycho shooting this last September, when 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique were murdered by Marc Lepine. Article here http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=
I had forgotten about this, but the behavior of these men seems to me much more troubling than anything we have heard about the actions/inaction of the students and teachers at VaTech.

Sorry I haven't figured out the tag thingies--

Snochasr:

I think you misinterpret Dean Barnett's comments. I believe he is referring to the truth, even states it directly, that there is no government solution to this problem.

No. I listened to the show. Barnett did not simply mean no "government" solutions.

He was specifically confronted on the point of, e.g., allowing private citizens to carry guns; he was challenged by Yoni Tidi (Yoni the Blogger) who discussed how Israel stopped armed attacks at Israeli schools and universities.

But he dismissed that out of hand, on the grounds that it only worked in Israel because Israel has universal military service. Since Americans aren't all soldiers, it wouldn't work here, he said.

Barnett's rejection of solutions flows much deeper than a mere rejection of liberal solutions like gun prohibition. His entire point, all through the show, was that such things simply happen, and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent them. We must just accept them, grieve, and move on.

Nothing he has written since then mitigates or modifies that message. In the quoted piece, he says that no "policy prescription" will solve such problems. But a policy prescription doesn't mean just a government policy prescription; private institutions, such as schools and universities, also promulgate them.

Dean Barnett argues against the very existence of a solution; not merely against liberal gun prohibitionists.

Dafydd

Lisan:

From your post and all the comments, it is clear that you and others too see this group dynamic as counter-intuitive and inexplicable behavior.

I see it as inexcusible, but not inexplicable.

Humans are biologically descended from pack animals. Even as humans, we've always lived in packs, and we still do. But whenever pack animals come together into a group, the first thing they must do, before any other function, is select a leader.

This process precedes even necessary functions like finding food.

I believe that a spontaneous group -- in this case, the group of targets spontaneously formed by the attack -- cannot act against the attack as a group unless and until it first selects a leader.

When there is no time to decide leadership, the collection of individuals almost never functions as a group. Individuals may dart out of the round-up to defend themselves and others (as Professor Librescu did); but the collection as a whole is helpless.

You hint at this yourself in the next paragraph, and you bring up the next scenario to consider: the heroic Flight 93 defense of America. In that case, there was enough time that the group chose a leader, Todd Beamer (you also note this). On the black-box recording, you can clearly hear him issuing orders, including the final one: "let's roll."

When a group does have time to select a leader, then if that leader orders a defense, they will conduct one. But if the leader orders surrender, as in the case of the British sailors and marines, it's very hard to buck his leadership.

To me, that adequately explains why the targets at Virginia Tech did not fight against the killer: They saw themselves as part of a group, but the group was leaderless... hence rudderless.

...But it does not excuse it. Though we are descended from pack animals, we have the moral duty to rise above that nature and follow our human nature instead. After all, males in a dog pack simply mate with any female they can dominate... but we would never tolerate such behavior in our society (in many Islamic countries they do, however).

I know why they didn't fight him as a group; but I condemn individuals for not breaking from the group and trying to take him out as individuals.

Dafydd

BigLeeH:

We know he died, but we don't know what he was doing at the time. We may never know.

We haven't enough data to condemn any individual; but we do know that if several students had rushed the assassin more or less together, he could not have shot them all before being swarmed -- and in that case, they wouldn't have taken casualties anywhere near as heavy as they did.

So we can condemn the collection of individuals who were within range but did nothing, even if we can't point to a single person and positively identify him as guilty of dereliction of duty.

Dafydd

Lissan:

And how do we as civilians make sure we have the essential tools of character ready to implement in a dangerous situation so we don't fail?

By training. I have long argued that, while I totally oppose mandating military service, there can be no logical objection, either moral or religious, to mandating universal military training.

I have heard of many religions that preach "thou shalt not murder," and even some that preach "thou shalt not kill." But I have never heard of one that preaches "thou shalt not even know how to kill, regardless of whether thou useth that skill or not."

There is no moral excuse -- only the rare medical condition -- for a free human being, male or female, not to thoroughly understand:

1. How to shoot a gun and hit what he aims at;
2. How to use self-defense techniques (boxing, wrestling, fencing, or whatever it is that the Gracies do);
3. Formation drill, both marching and stationary (but anyone playing intermural team sports can use that as his drill qualifier);
4. Basic survival techniques, such as foraging for food and signalling for help;
5. Basic first aid and EMR;
6. Basic physical fitness;
7. Swimming;
8. Basic automotive repair;
9. Military strategy, tactics, and history;
10. And most important of all, basic civics, both descriptive and prescriptive.

There are numerous skills everyone should be required to learn. As the sainted Heinlein wrote, "specialization is for insects." And each of these skills is certainly more vital than knowing how to organize a union, wave a sign at an anti-Bush rally, or pull a condom over a cucumber.

Only number 2 is even problematical for pacifists; and even there, you're not hurting another person (except perhaps by unintended training accident). It's still up to you whether you choose to use those techniques.

I believe everyone should be taught, trained, and drilled from junior high through high school; but that nobody should be drafted or forced to commit violence, unless the very survival of the nation is imminently imperiled.

That would go a long way towards empowering individuals in America to quickly and effectively form into groups to defend against such hideous future crimes as this.

Dafydd

Dafydd:
I knew you would have something illuminating to say, and I thank you. I happen to agree that understanding the behavior doesn't excuse it. And we came to the same conclusion you did that leadership turns out to be that critical personal element that must be present for either the action of an individual regardless of the group, or for directing the action of the group in whole or part.

I guess what may be an irrelevant point, but interesting to me nonetheless, and part of what I was trying to question, is this: are we seeing less proper leadership (more group passivity) now within our civilian population, or has this always been a problem for humans throughout our history?

Lisan, not being an expert I would have to assume that basic survival reflexes are natural to us when born, but are trained out of us in the 'civilization' process. The problem occurs when the civilization decides to let "others" take care if it, for any given it.

At that point, normal people are not prepared by their parents or their schools in how to protect themselves when attacked. It's both a mindset and an active supression of a basic, natural reflex.

The world early on was divided between those who learned how to run away and survive, and those who confronted the Sabre Tooth Tiger by saying "Here Kitty, Kitty..."
(nodding to Terry Pratchett)

A tad flippant, but the point stands. "Fight or Flight" is natural, "Submit" is taught.

Brilliiant...simply brilliant. Thank you. We have a responsibilty to live, nay a duty to live. To lay down and die peacefully is to spit in Gods face as if his greatest gift to us means nothing.

All of the rational non-crazy folks get scared but that doesn't mean you shouldn't put your fears aside and act to save yourself...as well as others.

That's a good point about needing a leader, but quite often a leader forms the group instead of the group selecting a leader.
In other words, somebody would have said, "Okay, let's get him." and hope some people followed him/her.
We are not suffering from a surfeit of leaders in this country. We're not as bad as the EU, but we just don't have that many people who are willing to take charge.
Montrose's toast would be lost on a lot of the people educated in our public school system. They don't understand that you have to risk to gain, and risk a lot to gain a lot. The VT situation required you to risk your life to keep it.
They are taught that you should gain without risk. That's what the nanny-state is all about, convincing you that with no risk you can gain.

Alternatively, to reverse the Instapundit's line, a herd not a pack.

We haven't enough data to condemn any individual; but we do know that if several students had rushed the assassin more or less together, he could not have shot them all before being swarmed -- and in that case, they wouldn't have taken casualties anywhere near as heavy as they did.

Perhaps. Since there were survivors from most of the rooms to tell us what went on it is likely that at some point we will have enough information to draw your conclusion. I, at least, don't have that much information yet. Despite G. Gordon Liddy's observation on his radio show some years back that "if the 9mm were any good the Pope would be dead" the weapon does have considerable stopping power and the gunman had a second gun (admittedly, only a .22) with which to defend himself while he reloaded. Rushing the gunman while he was reloading would absolutely have been the right thing to do, but it is by no means impossible that such a concerted effort would have failed.

But my larger point is that by focusing on the students as representative of a societal malaise you want to criticize -- what Mark Steyn calls "The Culture of Passivity" -- you force your readers to blame the victims in order to take your point.

A better way to approach it would be to invite your readers to imagine a society that understands the individual responsibility for mutual self-defense and teaches that responsibility to their children. You could then point out that, in such a society, the damage done by an armed nut-job would be minimized. You could then leave your readers to decide for themselves the degree to which it is reasonable to expect the students at Virginia Tech to derive the properties and advantages of such a society given 30 seconds to think about it.

You are absolutely right. I got chastised at my blog for starting to think right away about gun control, insanity, etc. But I had the same thought as you did -- I'm not conversing directly with friends and family, and this is the right time to analyze the issues this shooting raises.

You're also right about how we've emasculated ourselves as a society. When I heard about the Marines being led onto waiting Iranian ships, and when I heard about the VTech students lined up to be shot, all I could think of was the Jews passively getting round up by the Nazis. When Israel says "never again," she means that her citizens will never again allow themselves to be taken without a fight. What the country realized collectively is that, if you're going to die anyway, take the others down with you -- and you may discover that your death toll isn't as great as you thought.

Incidentally, the same holds true in self-defense -- or so I was told during a long-ago self-defense class. The teachers said that women who fight back are more likely to get hurt but (and here's the kicker) less likely to get killed.

How ironic. Today I was reviewing emergency lock down procedures with my high school students. I made it clear that in the unlikely event of an emergency there were to move to the safest part of the classroom and do exactly what I said without question. Then I created scenario 2: I was out of the room for some reason. I said, "Someone has to be the leader, and you'll have to do as he or she says." Each class now has a student leader as well.

My student teacher added, "The way to avoid becoming a victim is not to act like one."

Fritz,

Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs... The analogy I think you wanted to convey was the necessity of Sheepdogs to protect the Sheep from the Wolves.

I think you need to re-read Whittles "Tribes" essay. He is actually quoting the intro from "The Bulletproof Mind", written by Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman. Grossman has also written the book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War", which is a must read as well...

Worth re-quoting here is Grossman's intro to Bulletproof that Bill included in "Tribes".

I am a sheepdog...

The Bulletproof Mind:

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 total 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." Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, "We intimidate those who intimidate others."

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? Then you are 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.

He continues:

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 dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose 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, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that 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. As Kipling said in his poem about "Tommy" the British soldier:

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir,"
when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys,
there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir,"
when there's trouble in the wind.

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.

While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage -- only one. He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

BigLeeH:

But my larger point is that by focusing on the students as representative of a societal malaise you want to criticize -- what Mark Steyn calls "The Culture of Passivity" -- you force your readers to blame the victims in order to take your point.

It is perfectly proper to blame the victim when the victim is, in fact, blameworthy. History is filled with tales of victims who became willing, even eager collaborators in their own victimization... including those Jews in Europe who neither fled from nor fought back against the Nazis.

We don't know yet whether several students attempted to rush the murderer at Virg Tech. But frankly, I suspect most did not; because we both know that if three or even two had rushed him from different directions, there would be little a single shooter could do.

He didn't have an AK-47; he didn't even have an area weapon like a shotgun. And I will be surprised if it turns out he was a crack shot, given that he only bought the guns in March, I believe.

So if it turns out that there was no concerted or even semi-concerted effort to tackle him, as I suspect, will you join me in blaming the victims?

Dafydd

Here's the original from Lt. Col. Grossman's web site...

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

Good analysis. After the Hurricane Katrina mess, Bill O'Reilly made the point that if you rely on the government to save you in times of crisis, you end up on the roof of your house in New Orleans. That mentality is rife in our country (that the government will fix all problems) and is exactly what you are referring to in regards to the VA Tech murders. We are no longer a nation of "rugged individualists" who rely on themselves. it is hard to believe that we are mostly descended from people who set sail for America (some not of their own volition) with all their wordly possessions in a trunk to start a new life. they had no social security, unemployment compensation, health plans, welfare was largely unheard of and yet they prevailed. God knows how! They must be spinning in their graves.

It is obvious that Va Tech is a hopeless case. We need to pull all US people out and redeploy to another university. The bloodshed and carnage show that we cannot possibly hope gain control. After years of US involvement in the administration of this university, it has become evident that the foreign students do not want our help.

The motives for starting this university were a lie. It is all about money for corporations. Higher education is just a buzz word for creating workers for corporations and of course corporate kingpins.

We now have written proof from Koreans that they do not want our education system and we should abide their wishes instead of imposing our will on them. We are losing this war. I support the students but we should not send any more students in harms way. The way to solve these problems is with diplomacy. De-fund the university now!

Rasco:

That was hilarious! Thanks.

Dafydd

So if it turns out that there was no concerted or even semi-concerted effort to tackle him, as I suspect, will you join me in blaming the victims?

In that event I will certainly consider adding them to my list of the blameworthy -- rather near the bottom of the list which is quite lengthy. They will fall well below, say, the Virginia legislature that refused to allow concealed carry on campus.

Dafydd, it seems that I am finally starting to hear some commentary on what I call the "sitting duck" problem we have in our society. You have described it perfectly. It is even automatic for me who knows better. When my husband got his CCW (not an easy task in CA) I was reluctant for him to carry when he was not at work. I used to call him paranoid when he carried (legally) to his local community college for photography classes---I sure don't see him as paranoid now.

I see the problem as one entirely fixable if parents are willing to step up. My son is only two and I already see that sense of justice and protection coming through on the playground and with his little friends. Children know this and we train it out of them as a society. We make them helpless, then we sob, when something bad happens.

As the mother of a son, a wife of a strong, protective man and a sister to two strong men, the first thing that I think when I hear these things is: Where are all the young men? Don't they know they are strong? Don't they know they are able? Then I realize that, sadly, too often they do not know. They have been trained too often to think that their natural protective instinct is sexist...aggressive...somehow too much. Shame on us.

When my son grows up, I want him to be the kind of man that understands honorable sacrifice, whether that means defending and providing for his family or (God protect us) tackling a man from behind who is trying to hurt others.

Dafydd, rap on! You are so right about the "fountain of futility". As your erstwhile editor, I'd suggest one amendment: everyone who has grown up in this country since about 1970 (which includes nearly all of the victims) has been "bathed since birth in the fountain of futility and feminism." This offered as a partial answer to Eilish's question about what has happened to the young men in this country.

We no longer let boys be boys, and then we can't understand why many are incapable of doing the correct and manly thing when the time comes. I guess I was lucky to be the son of a USMC Korean War veteran, although many times while growing up I did not appreciate this fact.

Men, especially white men, have been marginalized in order to compensate for our past "sins". If you constantly tell someone to sit down and shut up, don't expect them to jump up and throw themselves into the lethal fray when you are threatened. I believe you are seeing this played out on many levels in our society today.

Eilish:

Would you mind awfully much if we cloned you and seeded millions of copies of you around the globe? I think the world would benefit...

Dafydd

So if it turns out that there was no concerted or even semi-concerted effort to tackle him, as I suspect, will you join me in blaming the victims?

Only if it suddenly turns out the killer was using squirt guns or perhaps rude language. Or if these college students were actually an armed and armored undercover SWAT team trained to respond instantly to such a crisis. I'm sure you would have easily taken out that little weasel with his piddly little popguns, Dafydd, but not everybody's Special Forces.

Are you people even listening to yourselves?

Daffyd,

I don't know how you should feel about this:

Kevin Granata had heard the commotion in his third-floor office and ran downstairs. He was a military veteran, very protective of his students. He was gunned down trying to confront the shooter.

Do you celebrate bravery, or only successful bravery?

As it stands, I'd say successful bravery--and as the linked WaPo account shows, the odds of a happy ending were pretty low at that particular place and time.

AMac:

Do you celebrate bravery, or only successful bravery?

Obviously the latter is preferable to the former... but the former is far to be preferred to passively acquiescing to one's own execution.

Wouldn't you agree?

My point earlier -- if you read back -- was that if several people rushed the butcher more or less simultaneously, then he likely couldn't shoot them all.

If a single person plans to rush a shooter, I would certainly advise doing it when his back is turned.

But I wholeheartedly applaud Mr. Granata, a brave man who did what he could. "There stands a man."

Jim Treacher:

If you're still reading, let me ask you a serious question...

Suppose you were among those people the killer ordered to line up and turn their backs... as evidently he did.

What would you do?

Dafydd

Jim Treacher,

Staying away from the ad hominem, the fact is that you are an example of the attitude that allows people to be slaughtered like so many sheep.

It is a virtue to not allow oneself to be slaughtered like a lamb, but to try, even in vain, to protect not only yourself but others. It's a virtue to do so, even should you die in the attempt. It's a virtue to do so, even to die in the attempt to save one such as yourself, who will roll over, and show your tummy, hoping that the big bad man won't step on it....

Ok, now I won't avoid the ad hominem. [But I will. Such personal attacks violate the commenting rules here -- the Mgt.] **********************, but people such as myself will still put their lives on the line in order to protect. This is especially remarkable when considering **********************.

Suppose you were among those people the killer ordered to line up and turn their backs... as evidently he did.

That was one of the initial reports, but has it been confirmed? It doesn't really jibe with the other accounts that the killer didn't say a word the whole time. They're still trying to figure out exactly what happened, but I guess all these Jack Bauers out there just don't have time to wait for the facts.

Staying away from the ad hominem, the fact is that you are an example of the attitude that allows people to be slaughtered like so many sheep.

Which attitude, the attitude that human beings aren't ants defending their queen? I'm not saying it's not admirable to lay down your life for someone else. I'm saying that you don't know whether or not you're capable of it until it happens. Also, go ****** your ****** in the ***** *************.

And considering that he wasn't holding hostages, but was just walking into rooms shooting, no, I don't think I'd line up and let him gun me down. If that's in fact what happened, which sounds unlikely to me. I swear, Popular Mechanics could do a book on this, and it's only been a week.

Dafydd, you wrote:

Obviously [successful bravery is preferable to bravery without the good outcome]... but the former is far to be preferred to passively acquiescing to one's own execution.

Wouldn't you agree?

My point earlier -- if you read back -- was that if several people rushed the butcher more or less simultaneously, then he likely couldn't shoot them all.

If a single person plans to rush a shooter, I would certainly advise doing it when his back is turned.

In this post, you are analyzing the plot of the first part of Lord Jim, the ship's officer whose idle dreams of heroism shatter in a moment of cowardice.

No objection there--it's a great book, and one that speaks to the tragedy at VT.

The problem arises with your tone of certainty in describing the failures of the real people in Norris Hall that morning.

We know Lord Jim's heart, exactly, because Joseph Conrad opened it for us. But do we know the deeds--much less the hearts--of the thirty men and women who died?

You and many of your commenters assume you do. By bringing up the name of the brave and fallen Kevin Granata--who ran towards the sound of the shots--I wish to remind you that you do not.

Who muffed their chance to "follow your advice" and team-rush the shooter when his back was turned? Are you sure the opportunities existed? Do you wish to list, by name, the fallen students and staff who were insufficently brave? No, of course not. Because (1) you don't know, and (2) heroism is by definition a rare treasure, not a prerequisite for an upper-level hydrology class.

But I wholeheartedly applaud Mr. Granata, a brave man who did what he could. "There stands a man."

Two closing thoughts. (1) Reflecting on my own comments at a Winds of Change post led me to this revised opinion. (2) The snark directed at Jim Treacher for his remarks on a related issue is unseemly.

The snark directed at Jim Treacher for his remarks on a related issue is unseemly.

That was the part in the asterisks, then? Now I'm all curious.

Jim Treacher:

Three response comments -- and in none of them did you actually answer the question.

Care to essay an answer? Had the killer ordered you to line up and turn your back (by word or gesture, however you please), what would you do?

Not what wouldn't you do, but what actual action would you take?

Dafydd

You're talking about a completely different scenario, Dafydd. You're talking about a hostage situation, not an ambush. Which is what this was. You really seem to be fixated on that initial "line-up" story for whatever reason, but I think you need to give it up because there's no evidence for it. Don't be a Truther.

But okay, to answer your question: In such a hypothetical situation, of course I would disarm the gunman with a deft Krav Maga move, break his neck with a quick snap, and quip to the nearest attractive female student, "Cho? More like 'mo!" Then everyone would laugh and high-five.

Jim Treacher:

But okay, to answer your question: In such a hypothetical situation, of course I would disarm the gunman with a deft Krav Maga move, break his neck with a quick snap, and quip to the nearest attractive female student, "Cho? More like 'mo!" Then everyone would laugh and high-five.

In other words, you refuse to answer. What's worse, you inexplicably call me a "Truther," which is a person who denies the standard explanation of 9/11 -- that al-Qaeda flew planes into buildings, knocking two of them down and damaging the Pentagon.

I have no idea how this relates to the V Tech massacre; it seems a complete non-sequitur. It's also false.

In any event, since you ask questions but refuse to answer when questions are asked of you, this conversation is pointless and will not continue.

Dafydd

In other words, you refuse to answer.

What does it have to do with anything? That's not what happened. I don't know what I'd do if something like what you're talking about did happen. That's my answer. Sorry if you don't like it.

I have no idea how this relates to the V Tech massacre; it seems a complete non-sequitur.

Truthers bring up stuff that didn't happen as if it happened. They point to rumors and half-truths to back up their arguments.

...this conversation is pointless and will not continue.

I couldn't agree more, but you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

Or how about this: If somebody had just shot a bunch of my classmates and wanted me to turn around so he could shoot me in the back of the head, or whatever scenario you're picturing, I don't think I'd comply because there would be little chance of survival. That small sense of hope is what allows a single hostage taker to control several people, none of whom want to die. It's a threat, not a certainty. That's not at all what happened here, but since you insist, I'd probably run, fight, or freeze. That's all I can think of, and I apologize for the limits of my imagination.

Jim Treacher:

That's not at all what happened here, but since you insist, I'd probably run, fight, or freeze. That's all I can think of, and I apologize for the limits of my imagination.

All right, Jim, now you're starting to engage. But again, as you didn't actually answer the question -- you simply listed all possible options without picking one -- I have to conclude that you really, really don't want to answer it.

Probably because you know that you, personally, would try to do something to stop the carnage... but you realize that would demolish your current argument supporting the adult students' passivity.

So let's leave off the controversial claim that the killer lined victims up to shoot them -- I have not seen this refuted, but it's not vital to the argument -- and shift instead to an incident that everyone agrees happened: Professor Liviu Librescu standing in the doorway, confronting the killer, while his class escaped through the window.

(You do, I assume, believe this happened?)

All right. Professor Librescu's "class" included a number of healthy, young, adult males. The confrontation with the killer must have gone on for some time, because there was enough time for the entire class, without exception, to find a window, climb through it, and drop to the ground.

They were many against one, and that one had a restricted entrance he had to brave to get into that room.

Why did not a single person in that classroom -- male or female -- come to the aid of the heroic, 77 year old professor? Even if he ordered the class to flee, why did every last person obey, leaving him behind to die?

There was a doorway; Librescu stood in it. The killer must come through that doorway, or possibly one other. And with a man on either side (of each doorway, if necessary), the killer would be extremely vulnerable to being grabbed as he went through.

But not a single person in that class remained to help the professor; they all exited.

There are only two possibilities:

1. It never occurred to any of them that he could do anything to stop the killings;
2. It did occur to some of them, but they rejected the idea as too risky.

Neither is a credit either to the students -- or to the society that took the naturally aggressive tendencies of most boys and some girls and twisted them into a passivity that allowed them to accept the life-sacrifice of a beloved teacher without putting up any resistance at all.

There is no way to get away from the painful fact that in this mass shooting (as in any where the killer shoots from near point-blank range), at many times during the course of the rampage, there necessarily are men and women within reach of the killer... yet they rarely make any attempt to confront him, tackle him, or stop him.

We have trained too many Americans not to take care of such problems on their own but rather to sit quietly and wait for instructions. No matter whether the "instructions" are issued by the killer himself -- or by a heroic Holocaust survivor who is sacrificing his own life... but who could perhaps have been saved, had a few of them simply tried.

Dafydd

All right, Jim, now you're starting to engage. But again, as you didn't actually answer the question -- you simply listed all possible options without picking one -- I have to conclude that you really, really don't want to answer it.

That's the point: No matter what answer I give, it doesn't matter because I won't know unless, God forbid, it happens to me. It's not a failure of imagination, for Pete's sake. This is really primal, reptile-brain stuff we're talking about here.

And I've been engaging your argument this whole time, Dafydd. You're the one throwing out hypotheticals and yelling "Answer the question!"

Probably because you know that you, personally, would try to do something to stop the carnage... but you realize that would demolish your current argument supporting the adult students' passivity.

Notice how I'm not questioning your motives, or trying to tell you what you really think? You're welcome. And they weren't "passive."

So let's leave off the controversial claim that the killer lined victims up to shoot them -- I have not seen this refuted, but it's not vital to the argument -- and shift instead to an incident that everyone agrees happened: Professor Liviu Librescu standing in the doorway, confronting the killer, while his class escaped through the window.

(You do, I assume, believe this happened?)

Wow, you mean the multiple eyewitness accounts about his selfless act are correct? Whereas apparently the lack of eyewitness accounts about some kind of hostage line-up, where the gutless students just sat there waiting to die, don't prove it didn't happen.

I agree that it's not vital to your argument, which is why I'm still not sure why you keep insisting on an answer to something that is unknowable.

Librescu: I agree with you 100% that he was a hero. I also believe that the reason we even have the word "hero" is because not everyone is one. But that doesn't make the rest of them cowards. It's not either/or. When a fireman pulls somebody out of a burning building and dies in the attempt, do you blame the person he was saving? Do you have to use one man's extraordinary selflessness to drive a wedge between him and the people he saved?

We have trained too many Americans not to take care of such problems on their own but rather to sit quietly and wait for instructions.

Read the accounts of what happened. They didn't sit quietly. They blocked doors, ran at him, ran away, played dead, whatever they could. Some survived, some didn't, but none of them "sat quietly."

I'm sure the next guy who tries something like this when you're around will wish he hadn't, but personally, I'm willing to give these students the benefit of the doubt that they did what they could.

I apologize for saying you were yelling. Insisting strongly, let's put it that way.

And I apologize again, but this just occurred to me: How did these students know the killer was alone? From the look of the diagrams that are coming out and the eyewitness accounts, the miserable freak popped his head in the doorway and just started shooting. How could the students in that classroom know it was just one angry nerd with a couple of measly guns? How could the students in any of the other classrooms know? Were they all supposed to all rush out and run toward the gunshots? At least one guy did exactly that, and unfortunately he paid with his life. I'm in no way blaming him for his actions, which is a courtesy I wish you'd extend to the rest of them.

There has not been a single report of any student or students making an agressive move on the killer. That's the point, not quibbles over whatever actions might be loosly interpreted as "non-passive".

The real question on the table is: Should it be expected for a group of young adults of that size to initiate action? It should IMO. It is surprising there's none reported and it seems to indicate a cultural phenomenon. The school system and academia are to a very large extent dominated by an ideology opposed to self defense, individualism, military, and guns.

Like Flight 93, this incident will affect how subsequent events of this type play out. Most rational individuals realize they need to be more proactive and while they may not engage in "blame the victims" for not fighting back, they are now more likely to do so themselves.

There has not been a single report of any student or students making an agressive move on the killer.

My mistake, it was a professor. Washington Post: "Kevin Granata had heard the commotion in his third-floor office and ran downstairs. He was a military veteran, very protective of his students. He was gunned down trying to confront the shooter." So maybe the people with experience with violence and death were better prepared to deal with it than people who weren't? That might be one theory.

unfortunately he paid with his life

Unfortunate that he didn't succeed or that he was dumb enough to try?

The odds of this event were never better than slim to none. Non student, ex military, no weapon, openly confronted. Pretty much as expected. The issue really being questioned here is young adults being slaughtered in a room.

As a simple experiment have one guy with a paintball gun enter a room with 20 young adults and see how many he can paint before someone can grab him. 2 maybe 3. That is the dynamic in mind for discussing. Odds, near certainty.

A single guy confrontation in the hall? Odds, near zero.

Unfortunate that he didn't succeed or that he was dumb enough to try?

As I very clearly specified, I do not blame him for his actions. He heard shots and ran toward them, which is remarkable. It's amazing! So no, it's not "unfortunate that he was dumb enough to try."

As a simple experiment have one guy with a paintball gun enter a room with 20 young adults and see how many he can paint before someone can grab him.

I know paintballs hurt, but I'm not sure how empirical that experiment would be.

The inference of your use of unfortunate does come off as "see look what happenes, it does no good! Better to just let yourself be killed"

So yeah, "dumb enough to try" seems to be your point, blame or not.

A room with 20 young adults agains one paintball gun is supposed to be obvious, not empirical. Did you miss the point on purpose?

Rather scoff than think I suppose.

The inference of your use of unfortunate does come off as "see look what happenes, it does no good! Better to just let yourself be killed"

And what does "In no way do I blame him for his actions" infer? It's unfortunate that he wasn't able to stop the guy, and that he died in the attempt. If that's somehow fortunate, I stand corrected.

A room with 20 young adults agains one paintball gun is supposed to be obvious, not empirical. Did you miss the point on purpose?

Do you really think shooting somebody with a paintball gun is the same as shooting them with a real gun?

If you want to talk about an experiment to figure out what happens when you shoot into a room of unarmed people, I'm not sure why you need to look any further than this massacre.

I mean, talk about empirical real-world data.

paintball gun is the same as shooting them with a real gun?

Never said it was. What I wrote ...

see how many he can paint before someone can grab him. 2 maybe 3. That is the dynamic in mind for discussing. Odds, near certainty.

Seems to be an argument about the odds of engagement. A proactive response should result in a similar casualty ratio.

Of course charging a real bullet is different than charging a paintball. That's exactly the point under discussion. If you can't bring yourself to admit that the proactive response works in paintball simulation then further discussion on the point is pointless.

Your real world example does prove the futility of a non-proactive response.

Not sure haw that helps your point however.

I can well understand those in the midst of such agony not wanting to hear or see anything about how to prevent such atrocities.
But many parents who have lost children have found ways to cope by making sure other parents don't lose theirs. America's most Wanted host for example.

Blogs are not encroaching on their grief, simply giving people an option to deal with it. The privacy of the internet is still upheld, and it is more the media that is in danger of violating the privacy of the parents. Not the blogs.

Whenever such a massacre is aborted by extraordinary courage on the part of ordinary people, we send the message that good men (and women) must do something to prevent the triumph of evil.

Not when the media controls the output of information, as they have done without our knowledge before Iraq. Some people knew or suspected, but Iraq truly exposed the media for what they are. But that basically means the media has been functioning like this for decades. What other information have they surpressed or distorted?

Here's an example. Link

it is an article that further elaborates upon the incident Dan quoted.

Planning and information is very important. Not only do you have to get a tactical awareness of the situation, but you need that awareness to know how to best go about achieving your objectives, your plans basically. For a school shooting, you need to know where the attacker is, how many of him there are, and what weapons he is carrying. And preferably, which room or direction he is going to go next. By using the element of surprise, a small group of people can ambush him as he steps into a room or goes outside a building.

Things are simpler in Grim's wargaming scenario because we assumed that one student had a gun and was armed. That increases the chance of success by quite a bit. But this seems selective really. Until we can get more people armed in soft targets like schools, what we deal with now is unarmed students. And how they should react.

Of course charging a real bullet is different than charging a paintball. That's exactly the point under discussion. If you can't bring yourself to admit that the proactive response works in paintball simulation then further discussion on the point is pointless.

Okay, then maybe you could explain how it applies to a non-paintball, actual-bullet example? I honestly don't understand what you're getting at.

Your real world example does prove the futility of a non-proactive response.

If that were true, there wouldn't be any survivors.

Given: 2 real world examples.

(1) 20 young adults in a room against real bullets and a non proactive response.

(2) 20 young adults in a room against paintballs and a proactive response.

Results:

(1) 20 dead young adults.

(2) 2 or 3 painted young adults.

You make the call, proactive verses non-proactive.

And how is blocking a door or trying to avoid a bullet not proactive?

Well, (2) is not a "real-world example." It's a hypothetical you just made up, apparently to try to explain how people should act when they're being shot at. Maybe that's where we're getting our wires crossed. Plus you don't seem to know what "proactive" means, so that doesn't help.

Dont try and change the quibble from whatever actions might be loosly interpreted as "non-passive" to whatever actions might be loosly interpreted as "non-proactive".

Been there done that.

Paintball is just as real world as bullets.

Apparently rational discussion is no longer an option here.

Dont try and change the quibble from whatever actions might be loosly interpreted as "non-passive" to whatever actions might be loosly interpreted as "non-proactive".

You know it's getting fun when people start pulling out dictionary defintions... proactive: acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes. I'd say "I'm about to get shot" would qualify as a future problem. There's nothing in the definition about how you should try to solve that problem, so presumably running, hiding, or blocking the door are not automatically disqualified.

Paintball is just as real world as bullets.

I'm sure coroners all over the world would be interested to learn more about that one.

Sorry if my definition by example does not suit your dictionary definition. Bite me.

Given example: see how many he can paint before someone can grab him

Clearly you don't want to address the paintball simulation. Have your fun with your dictionary but you're making a fool of yourself.

Sorry if my definition by example does not suit your dictionary definition. Bite me.

I appreciate your thoughtful invitation, but I must regretfully decline. Please allow me to apologize for my factual accuracy and insistence on specifics.

Given example: see how many he can paint before someone can grab him

Clearly you don't want to address the paintball simulation. Have your fun with your dictionary but you're making a fool of yourself.

Well, okay, I'll try: So in this "simulation" you've concocted with a paintball gun and a classroom full of students -- an experiment you haven't actually conducted, mind you, but one that only exists in what we'll call your "mind" -- your contention is that fewer students would get shot than did in the Virginia Tech massacre. Keeping in mind that in that case, the guy had an actual gun that shot actual projectiles that went into people's actual bodies and brains, causing injury and death.

Good point! I concede.

my factual accuracy and insistence on specifics

Actually in this case the example action had been described before the term "proactive" was applied to it. You clearly just wanted to obfuscate and avoid using standard wordgame foggery.

If one strategy in paintball simulation results in 2 or 3 casualties, and another strategy results in all 20 casualties whether paintball or bullet, there might theoretically be an advantage to the first strategy.

Pointing that out to establishing it would in fact be a good thing. Like Flight 93, the rules have been changed by real events. My comments merely reflect a new reality you apparently prefer to deny.

Actually in this case the example action had been described before the term "proactive" was applied to it.

My mistake.

If one strategy in paintball simulation results in 2 or 3 casualties, and another strategy results in all 20 casualties whether paintball or bullet, there might theoretically be an advantage to the first strategy.

You know, I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right.

My comments merely reflect a new reality you apparently prefer to deny.

Good point! I no longer deny it. Anyone for paintball?

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)