In fairness to both...
Being armed (and trained) at a scene puts one in a different frame. Having a LadySmith or even a Louisville Slugger makes aggressive contact *feel* far more likely successful. One argument I have with Steyn is that, being unarmed, even the best amongst us would likely have avoided contact.
Running away -- it's the new bravery!
So it's a good thing that these students (and apparently you, Damian) have dutifully absorbed their state sponsored, Oprah approved victim training?
Canadian "conservativism" just gets odder all the time...
Damian, remind me never to get on a plane with you, m'kay?
Why Kathy, you're brave and strong enough for all of us.
Posted at 2007-04-20 07:01:14 [PermaLink]I don't think running away or hiding would be "brave," just that it would be our natural instinct under these circumstances. If all of us were inclined to take down the guy - while unarmed - it would be wonderful, but the very concept of "bravery" would effectively be meaningless. By its very definition, bravery is *exceptional* behavior.
Posted at 2007-04-20 07:01:36 [PermaLink]Mate, if I'd been at Virginia Tech that day I wouldn't have stopped running till I hit Maryland.
Posted at 2007-04-20 07:16:29 [PermaLink]"One argument I have with Steyn is that, being unarmed, even the best amongst us would likely have avoided contact."
That's not exactly a small distinction, though! Shooting the guy in the back as he left (and not for a second do I believe that John Derbyshire or Kathy Shaidle has the combat reflexes to kill the guy before that) is one thing, but running after him and tackling him? In my imagination, I'd do it too, but that doesn't put me in a position to ridicule people who didn't.
Civilization wasn't built on people obeying their instincts, but in resisting them for something higher or dying in the attempt (or at least having the decency to lower their head in shame.)
I realize this doesn't fit into the whole libertarian/South Park Conservativsm thing but I'm old fashioned that way. Being old fashioned used to be part of what "conservativism" was all about...
We spend half our blog time bemoaning the death of the West at the hands of Muslim extremists, but then blithely admit we wouldn't even try to throw a textbook at some zit faced geek.
Now who's displaying bravado? At least my convictions are consistent.
I'm with Kathy here. What is "instinctive" is what one has trained oneself to become; the active response that one is drawn toward without having time to reflect upon things. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote (A Soldier's Faith), he celebrates the playing of polo notwithstanding the danger--it conditions for heroism. A strong community needs people who are strongly self-reliant.
I have taken up karate with my kids (an excellent parent-child activity that I recommend). I have been told that the nunchaku techniques developed in self-defence using the rudimentary grain-whacking implements used by farmers, as they were not allowed swords or other conventional weapons. The technique involves movements to neutralize a sword. I will be suggesting invention of new techniques using modern ready-to-hand implements--such as an electric kettle with a plug-in cord as a mace, or whatever.
Steyn's criticism would be shameful if it were an attempt to blame the victims and those who ran rather than heroically resisting the shooter.
But it's not.
His point is that the prevailing culture nurtures the sense that we ought to follow our natural instincts, rather than teaching people that their natural instincts tend to be self-serving, and although it's understandable, this is hardly something to be proud of. And it certainly shouldn't be defended by telling other people that they would do the same. I don't see any of these men - Steyn, Derbyshire, etc. - confidently asserting that they would act bravely. Only that raising people to take the path of least resistance because it's the natural thing to do makes it less likely that men will behave bravely or heroically when called on to do so. And nothing in your post convinces me otherwise. Rather it tends to underscore the very point that they're making.
What I'm seeing is a differing response to the spectacle of heroism.'
For a surprising number of people (I'm learning this week) heroism is a Faberge egg: a rarity to be admired at a distance.
For me, having been brought up with stories of the saints and a fan of biographies of the great, I see heroism as a dare, a challenge. Something we're obliged to try to live up to, even though we may well fail.
Now, we'd all like to go back to watching the Barett Jackson without hearing the dreaded words We Interrupt This Program. So, here's my question: which of the two attitudes above seems better designed to help us get through the next 50 years?
Admiring voyerism, or admiring imitation?
People do tend to run away.
When at university, a long, long time ago, a fire began in my apartment building.
I was at my typewriter....I did say it was a long time ago.... and could hear this women ( welfare mom) screaming, "help, help"!
A Damsel in distress; I couldn't resist....
I went out into to the hall, noticed smoke, grabbed a nearby fire-extinguisher and hosed everyone and everything down.
The silly welfare mom, a very portly damsel, by the way, should have grabbed an extinguisher ( there was one right outside her bloody apartment) instead of screaming, waving her arms and doing nothing. One almost had to douse her before attending to the fire.
However, it was the behavior of the buidling's other tenants that schocked me. Rather than helping put out a glorified grease-fire, they chose, instead, to collect up their belongings, at least those they could, and to flee the building pronto.
They immediately threw in the towel and ran out all willy-nilly before even trying to deal with with a small, slow-burning fire. It really made me stop and think about how some people operate.
Got an honourable mention by the Wesmount Fire Dep't.
That said, don't know what I'd do if confronted by a crazed gunman.
I am with Kathie on this one.
Between the situation with the UK sailors and that at VT, it is pretty clear that we (the West) seem to have completely lost our will to fight and die in the face of existential threats. I know putting these 2 things in parallel is a bit of a stretch but one cannot but help notice that our "youngsters" in both situations seem to have been completely lacking any testicular fortitude.
In the case of the VT massacre, it seems that it went on for a very long time. One can understand that the immediate reaction of any one would be to try and protect themselves. But as things went on and on over several minutes, would not even one person adopt the "let's roll" attitude and decide to do something, anything? Same thing with the UK sailors. Should we not expect that one of them would have put up at least some minimum amount of resistance instead of turning almost willingly into a major mouthpiece for a fascist regime?
Look at the Italian journalist who said to the Al Quaida murderers "I am going to show you how an Italian man dies", just before he was beheaded. Look at McCain who was incarcerated for years and did not give in under pressure. Look at the people on Flight 93. Look at the 77 year-old professor who gave his life so others can live.
When you look at the all around picture here, you realize that a) clearly the state is incapable of protecting people in sudden, unexpected situations, b) people will essentially run for cover under these circumstances and c) we better each learn to protect ourselves and our families because, when it comes right down to it, when the moment comes, no one will be there, especially now that we are slowly running out of holocaust survivors.
Can we imagine a different outcome if Cho decided to enter a mess hall of the US marine corp to do his deed? Conditioning makes all the difference. The world can be a nasty place, the reality of which we are conditioning ourselves to ignore
Posted at 2007-04-20 08:59:14 [PermaLink]First, let me say that I am as much of a physical coward as the next guy, and if I found myself in such a situation, and my wife and kids were not in peril, then I honestly don't know what I'd do. Second, as a Christian, I am praying for the souls of these 32 and for the consolation of their family, and by no means do I wish to cast stones or to shame the memories of innocent victims of an evil man.
That said, I believe Mr Steyn is making an important point, as usual, and it is missing the point if we allow our own moral uncertainties--well, I don't KNOW how I would act, so I should not speak to what I believe it would be RIGHT or HONOURABLE to do--to lead us into silence on this matter. Frankly, these kinds of incidents, and their typical locales, are telling us something important about where our culture has arrived over the past 40 years of "everyone a victim" thinking, and even more specifically, about what a thoruogh-going assault on masculinity has done in that time. The war on traditional notions and ideals of manhood has been nowhere more total or successful than in academe and its offshoots in the subsidiary educational systems--it is I would argue no surprise that such cowardly sprees occur there with greater regularity. Imagine the fate of the murderer had he faced a group of unarmed men in a pub in South Boston or even a municipal rink filled with hockey dads in Guelph.
It is, to my mind, a remarkable thing that we have reports of students throwing themselves from second and third-storey windows, but not one of anyone rushing this slight man with two nonautomatic handguns that are relaible target finders only at about 7 feet. That this is so I would argue has everything to do with our culture's wholesale vilification and pathologization--from the Ritalin kids onward--of masculinity, including all those traditional manly roles of custodian and protector which people have, across cultures and ages, sought to make prestigious and attractive precisely as brakes upon particularly male forms of aggression and evil...of the sort on display in this sad incident. We've spent decades mocking, punishing, scorning and in various legal ways disabling such roles, so it is no surprise that there are few, in academe above all, left to fill them. We have encouraged everyone to play sheep and banished the sheep dog as our enemy in the false hope that wolves are just a myth.....
DMD
gaz, that would have been some run! Blacksburg to Maryland is nearly 250 miles, and there are at least a half dozen rivers you'd have to cross.
Posted at 2007-04-20 09:11:50 [PermaLink]Just caught Mark Steyn on the Dennis Miller radio show where he talks about the shooting. Dennis Millers website is here:
[External Link]
The show will be repeated at 1:00 PM (EST) and 4:00 PM (EST).
John Palubiski: Good story. Some do and most don't. At the age of about 4, my daughter was at kindergarten when the teacher put something containing aluminum foil in a microwave. Sparks flew, the teacher screamed and the kid turned off the microwave.
Posted at 2007-04-20 09:27:40 [PermaLink]Everyone has to follow Podhoretz's link to the WaPo account of what happened. I am less supportive of the Steyn/Shaidle view now than i was yesterday because it is now clear that almost no one knew what the was going until the gunman literally appeared in their room. And more than a few people acted in a way that deserves to be remembered, despite the confusion of the mornings terrible events:
"[Trey] Perkins and two classmates, Derek O'Dell and Katelyn Carney, ran up to the door and put their feet against it to make sure he could not get back in. They would have used a heavy table, but there were none, and the desks weren't strong enough.
Soon the gunman tried to get back in. The three students pressed against the door with their arms and legs, straining with their lives at stake. Unable to budge the door, the gunman shot through it four times. Splinters flew from the thick wood. The gunman turned away, again"....
"[Clay] Violand, feeling panicky, pointed at her and said, "Put that desk in front of the door, now!"...
and another hero to add along side the names Liviu Librescu and Zach Petkowicz:
"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 out of 100 or more people who faced this guy we have more than a few who kept their wits and did the right thing.
Matt
That account demonstrates the "Steyn/Shaidle" point: to wit, DO SOMETHING! The students in your quote did something which saved their lives and others, as opposed to he who curled up under a desk and counted himself lucky to have escaped.
Bismark has been quoted saying (paraphrase): "Some learn from experience, I prefer to learn from their experience." Professor Librescu evidently learned, it will take some time for others.
Slightly out of context: Mark 8:36
Cheers
"Can we imagine a different outcome if Cho decided to enter a mess hall of the US marine corp to do his deed?"
1) The whole point is that students aren't soldiers, aren't constantly armed, haven't trained in combat drills and don't have a chain of command.
2) That said, soldiers in similar situations (terrorist infiltration or just an unexpected raid) frequently don't make split-second decisions any better than the VT students did. And that's the case going back tens, hundreds or thousands of years.
Damian,
I've got to side with Shaidle on this one. She is bang on that the problem is a civilization that cultivates infantilized "adults" whose values have a floor of self-interest and a ceiling of witless empathic projection. But just to irritate her, I have to invoke some wisdom gleaned from the Symbolical Lecture of the Masonic degree of the Holy Royal Arch of Jerusalem:
"Next to obedience to lawful authority is a manly and determined resistance against lawless violence."
Matt you're judging the validity of my point using specific numbers over universal, timeless principles.
If we found out today that 5 more First Class men on the Titanic gave up their lifeboats seats to women and children than the 100 we'd previously known about, would that somehow negate our previous/overall views about who was honorable and who was not?
Such all star armchair quarterbacks we have here.
If it were a marine mess hall they would hopefully have worked together to close on the gunman, knowing that a couple of them would have taken a bullet or two in the process. They'd work, as they were trained, as a unit with disposable members to take on the gunman in the least amount of time possible.
The "heroic" situation that you guys are talking about is closing 10-20 feet on a guy with two guns while unarmed. Not going to happen unless you're good at throwing desks that distance and have an NFL wideout caliber first step. Not to mention that you better hit the guy like L.T. hitting a crackpipe because even after you get there, he still has two firearms and you can only reasonable restrain one arm.
Those are crap odds for a sleepy 19 year old sitting in math class and thinking about the weekend to decide to go for.
I'd like to think I'd have the presence of mind to recognize the nature of the threat, grab something heavy and have a go, but you have to acknowledge that you'd be better off playing Russian roulette and that most people aren't wired for suicide missions.
The fact that Dara thinks I'm wrong proves I'm right.
Yo Dara: still waiting for you to provide me with that list of 10 Muslim inventions in the last 100 years. I asked you last year and it is almost May. What gives?
Every living creature has a flight-or-flight mechanism built into its brain, with flight as the preferred option. Even big, strong animals like bears and lions will run away if the odds are against them.
To overcome that instinctive programming is difficult. That's why soldiers require special training for battle, and that's why acts of extraordinary courage in civilians are rewarded with medals etc: because they ARE so extraordinary. Maybe every citizen should be given combat training. But fact remains that the victims in this case had no such training, and absolutely no warning either. Blame society if you like, but don't blame them.
Michael Moore famously sneered at the passengers on the 9/11 flights, saying that planes full of Brown People would have easily overcome the terrorists but the mostly white males on the flights were too wimpy to fight back. I really can't imagine Moore and Steyn being on the same side of an issue!
Just in case people here still haven't got it. Steyn's lament was that we are a society that apparently won't fight back against killers. If a class of 20 students rushed this guy, he would have killed at most 10 of them (assuming he was firing both guns). No one who was being shot at (even when they were cornered) thought to rush the guy, to throw something at him (text book, chair, back pack, etc.). It was hid, run, or cry.
And, as Kathy has pointed out, this is not the foundation that you build a strong society on.
Dara
You really need to improve your knowledge of manly sports such as football, soccer, hockey or even flag football. Or you might undertake some research into arcane subjects such as 'action time' and 'reaction time'. Then your comment might have some supporting evidence vice repeating the errors of others.
However, given your reference to Marines as disposable members, you could have usefully ended your final para at the word "think".
Ellie
I understand your point about "fight or flight" but the point about military training is to learn to fight when avenues for flight are readily available. On the other hand, when escape is difficult or impossible, most animals will turn and fight. Unfortunately, we have unlearned survival instincts such as fighting when cornered. The story of the Birkenhead is more inspirational today when it is remembered that the soldiers were "doing their duty".
Cheers
I somewhat support the Steyn/Shaidle thesis, but feel they both ignore the fact that SOME students did do something. They hide in offices, barricaded the doors with armoires, desks etc, and these measures saved lives. That may sound cowardly, but when you're unarmed it's a smart thing to do.
Cho was insecure, his masculinity weak. To distract him long enough to grab the gun, someone should have just pointed at his crotch and screamed; "you're fly is open, you have Nodong"!
The moment he looks down, you deck 'im.
Seriously, despite the ink spilled about Cho's motivation and all, I don't think his actions are in some way symptomatic of America's moral decay or a result of its penchant for guns and violent video-games/movies.
Cho, and Cho alone, is responsable for what happened.
Nodong and no brain.
Is Kathy Shaidle claiming that "petulance" is a conviction?
'fraid not, mousy.
I never realized conservatism was better than Kevlar.
Posted at 2007-04-20 13:03:42 [PermaLink]Kathy, I gave you the conditions for the answer to that question. I told you that I would do the necessary research if you could give me a source for this gem of yours:
"I guess you haven't heard that many many Toronto Jamaicans loathe Chin because his success merely casts their own failures into high relief.
You really don't know much about this city, do you?"
I never stated that Muslims had invented 10 things in the past 100 years but you specifically made the point above. Please, teach me more about this city that I live smack in the middle of.
Also, I'm not fully disagreeing with you, I'm disappointed that not a lot of people stepped up, but I'm stating that the stupid little measures that people are suggesting like throwing textbooks are ridiculous.
I'd guess that in order to disarm this gunman you would need several physically adept people working together and you'd have less than 5 seconds to do it in before you all ended up dead. Otherwise you're just giving him a point blank shot at your chest.
So not a textbook, nor a cup of coffee, nor a pencil case will do. If you're going to demand heroism of people, at least recognize what you're asking. What you're talking about is a physical feat unattainable by 99.9% of people with coordinated teamwork that only training could provide.
I've seen a guy get hit in the head with a chair out of nowhere and not spill his drink. You've been watching too many movies if you think even a direct hit with a textbook is going to buy you more than two steps against an armed madman.
Just out of curiosity, how fast can you run the 40 Kathy?
JM: "However, given your reference to Marines as disposable members,"
I'm only describing the fearless manner in which you would have to act, not demeaning the Marines. Soldiers are so effective because they will undertake missions where they know some of them won't make it. My choice of words was maybe not the best but I was inferring bravery not worth.
I've also played all the sports you've mentioned (Soccer night is Tuesday), but I don't think you mean the same kind of football.
[External Link]
I don't see how you can claim that full body motion (charging the guy from a distance, tackling and controlling both arms) is at anywhere near the timescale of hand-eye motion(shooting), especially since the guy was actively shooting.
It's all becoming clear to me now.
Conservative bloggers like to cheer the brave Italian hostage and mock the British sailors. But when someone dares to suggest that we, ourselves, should aspire to bravery in a crisis, it hits the fan.
Why, that would take away from reading Playboy, drinking beer and watching TV!
This is akin to the other voyeristic, virtual reality avocation among conservative bloggers: the compulsive, D&D like analysis of poll numbers and Parliamentary seats.
For so many, this is all just a game, an intellectual exercise, not a matter of true conviction. Nothing to risk your life (or, more likely I suspect) one's popularity and future job prospects.
Ok, thanks for helping clear that up for me.
Kathy, can you clear up your quote now? I'll accept a source even if it only has one "many" in it.
Posted at 2007-04-20 14:02:28 [PermaLink]Without a firearm or warning, I think the natural reaction would be flight. We can't all be Chuck Noris or Bruce Lee.
Depending on how fast he's running, gaz should probably be passing through Harrisonburg about now. If he's hungry and has reservations (devilishly hard to come by) there's a 5 star restaurant in Washington, VA, called The Inn at Little Washington. He should be there by noon tomorrow, but he'll need to shower and get cleaned up, first. [External Link]
"Conservative bloggers like to cheer the brave Italian hostage and mock the British sailors. But when someone dares to suggest that we, ourselves, should aspire to bravery in a crisis, it hits the fan."
Of course we should aspire to it. But that doesn't mean these students were cowards. And you did use the word "cowardice," which Steyn liked so much that he quoted you, so I'm not sure why you're now claiming you didn't.
I mean, I can aspire to slamdunk a basketball all I want...
Posted at 2007-04-20 14:55:50 [PermaLink]And neatly tying in to another of Damian's posts, thanks to the puritanical drinking ages in most states, many college-age youths have no experience in how to handle themselves in bar brawls. Where I grew up, shooting billiards was the second practical use for a pool cue.
Posted at 2007-04-20 15:21:03 [PermaLink]And take a moment to read this commentary by Fred Thompson:
[External Link]
Paul... you have a very important point, pun aside. Kids who have never been in a fight or seen a brawl or ever faced live fire don't know how to act beyond the instinctive.
I've been beaten-up, and I've had to return the favour. I've been shot-at. I've had my car's trottle-body booby-trapped. My mindset is older, and probably far more pissed-off than the average kid's. (That's why I laughed so hard a few years ago when a commentor gave us his "I dare you to say that to my face!" routine in these very pages.)
Look: I will NOT label the runners in Virginia as cowards. If that had been a class of Marines or Soldiers... but they were not. Vast majority were in no mental or psychological position to respond aggressively.
For the second time in my career here, I agree with Dara. His point was well made.
That said, I salute Professor Librescu. What an extraordinary man. G-d bless his soul.
Exactly. Librescu was a hero. But he had also suffered through the Holocaust and Ceasescu's dictatorship. His outlook on life would have been profoundly affected by those things.
Posted at 2007-04-20 17:42:16 [PermaLink]So were the passengers on the first three 9/11 flights cowards, too? By Kathy's standards, it seems they were, just passively doing what the hijackers told them to and waiting to be flown into a building. Where were the valiant heroes on those planes?
Posted at 2007-04-20 18:00:19 [PermaLink]Dara:
You and I rarely agree on anything, but we sure as hell are on the same page this time.
Well said.
Honestly, I think its asking alot out of a group of university students who in the middle of a morning are interupted from their studies by a mad man barging into the class room and openning fire on them with two firearms to expect them to respond by storming the gunman with no thought to being fired upon.
Firstly, they're the shock factor - as civilians how many of us are really psychologically prepared for having someone fire at us out of the blue.
Secondly, even though many of us aren't cowardly or unaccustomed to conflict, many of us have been in a fight either during school years or with someone whose had too much to drink in a bar. However, a willingness to engage in hand to hand combat where one's worst expectations are a few cuts and bruises is decidedly different than being unarmed and faced with someone with a gun. Your a decisive disadvantage.
Thirdly, its reasonable to expect that if the students were armed they could have repelled the gunman, but unarmed? Its not an action movie where the guy in the third row is Steven Segal or Chuck Norris whose back in school after having severed five tours in name and has a background in ninjetsu - and is instantly available to spring into action with elite training and experience. They were just a bunch of normal people in their late teens and early twenties who did the best they could in a situation for which they were wholly unprepared for.
I mean Christ, this isn't Sparta where these kids would have been trained from birth to be some sort of warrior chaste and had teachings, trainings and insticts to rely on. They grew up playing baseball, football, video games and watching tv. Criticizing them strikes me as profoundly ignorant. Its hardly the same as criticizing the British marines either - they're suposed to be trained soldiers prepared for military conflict. More is reasonably expected of them in trying circumstances. These were simply university students who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Amen Chris, Dara, Ran, and Mike H. (did I miss anyone?)
Kathy's out to lunch on this one. This wasn't a house fire, or car wreck, or rescuing someone drowning. This was certain death for anyone foolhardy enough to run toward the shooter, as opposed to a chance of survival by seeking an escape.
Easy for the Armchair Strategist to sit in the comfort of their home and offer profound insight into the behavior of the unfortunate victims.
As a side note it would seem that from Helen of Troy to the present, it's been the 'weaker sex' stirring the pot and the boytoys doing the dying.
Damn, I wish I had a tenner for every barfight I've witnessed, started by some little chippie mouthing off who then expected her B.F. to come to her rescue.
Further to my comment above (having slept on it)it's implied, but not outright stated by a lot of the commentors, that the onus to 'do something!' falls on the males present at the scene, by virtue of their size, weight, athleticism, yada, yada. The girls get a free pass due to their lack of size, weight, athleticism, their kinder gentler nature, not to mention their lack of experience in such situations; as if ALL GUYS come with the requisite brawling backgrounds.
How many guys have YOU kicked the crap out of, Kathy, other than in writing I mean.
In short, She's stating by implication, that the males, whatever their stature, are/were supposed to sacrifice their very young lives to protect the equally young females in the situation. Kathy may protest, but you know in your hearts that's exactly what she meant.
I dunno, DinV.
I tend to stand behind Kathy.
Especially when someone fires at me!
Her point has some validity, in that people often react to such violence as though it were a movie.
Some asked if the passengers on those 911 flights were in some way to blame for their fate.
They aren't, and to assert as much is almost a gesture of cruelty.
I can only say that perhaps those on board 3 of the 4 planes didn't exhaust every available option, but in the one case where they did (flight 93) they all died anyways.
Sometimes no matter what you do, you're fucked; totally, utterly fucked.
No argument there J.P., but my point was that Kathy EXPECTS, nay, DEMANDS that people (guys implied: my point) be heroic (in this case suicidal) by nature. Anything less than that is cowardice: her point (as I read it).
Posted at 2007-04-21 10:03:15 [PermaLink]DinV, Kathy's take on the VT massacre may be a bit strong, but her point remains valid for the larger picture. Violence has become banal and when confronted by it, people tend to *non-react*...like those roadside Algonquin Park deer so stunned and mesmerised by your headlights you can run them over.
I know, a very Bambiphobic statement.
Hey, J.P; I dredged up this item in support of my contention that Kathy's talking through her hat. Please note that OVER 3/4 of the victims were male and 90% +/- were adults.
The very concrete contract between our Governments and ourselves is that they will protect us in return for which we will pay taxes, and a few other obligations. Women DEMAND protection; men not so much.
Where's the evidence that the statistical victims went like sheep to the slaughter?
I think she needs to walk a few miles in our (male's) shoes before postulating such cockamamie b.s.
"FBI Uniform Crime Reporting 2003
The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program's annual publication, Crime in the United States, 2003, compiles crime statistics from more than 17,000 city, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies.
Here is a summary of the murder and manslaughter statistics for 2003:
* The UCR Program estimated that 16,503 murders occurred in the United States in 2003. This figure represents a 1.7-percent increase from the 2002 estimate.
* Law enforcement agencies provided the UCR Program with supplementary data for 14,408 murders in 2003. These data showed that most murder victims (90.6 percent) were adults and most were males (77.6 percent). Of the male murder victims, 8.2 percent were juveniles (persons under the age of 18). Juvenile females comprised 13.5 percent of female murder victims nationwide."
I,m already aware of some of the stats you've presented, DinV. Men are far more likely to be murder victims than women.
That said, men tend to be far more involved in violent crime, and so I don't think your figures support the view of men-as-victims.
If a drug dealer is murdered, and that dealer had a reputation for burning some of his clients,low-lifes at that, can we then honestly portray him as a "victimn" of murder?
Some of these victims have spent years playing in traffic, as it were, and so it isn't that suprising when a few of 'em happen to get run over.
The VT tragedy is horrendous; I'm not sure just what were I ever to come face-to-face with a crazed gunman.
Hmmm...John, if you run away from a gun-toting drug dealer/crackhead that's common sense, but if you run away from a psychopathic killer, that's cowardice?...but only if you're male?
And Kathy, the Armchair Strategist, gets to judge you?...;)
I think that people criticizing Kathy's position forget one dimension of this whole setting, that of time. Yes, it is true that with a fight of flight instinct, most would try to escape as soon as confronted with a similar situation and this would be totally understandable. BUT, in this case, this situation seems to have gone on for many minutes and the killer even kept coming back to the same classrooms over and over. Similar to the passenger of Flight 93 who found out that their plane was headed to Washington and to certain death, it is not unreasonable to ask why those involved who were still able to do so would not at least mount some form of resistance or plan to take on the killer when he returned. Once the initial instinct to flee was shown to be futile, one would expect someone to assume some form of leadership and prepare some form of response. Were there not many cadets and ex-marines at the school? What did they do? Or, was it that as with their British colleagues (in Iran), their goal was to save their skin at all cost, thereby completely betraying what they had pledged and trained for?
Yes, I know it is harsh and heartless and easy to show armchair-courage...BUT these are legitimate questions and I bet that many who got out alive are feeling extreme guilt knowing that they could have done so much more.
While I enjoy a satirical broadside that makes a valid point, I recognize most here are concerned about where the rubber hits the road. To echo DaninVan, when it comes to a bar fight the priorities are: 1) not let one happen, 2) come out of it with the least injury, and 3) ensure the other guy gets the best shit-kicking you can deliver without coming up short on 2).
Yes, it's more reasonable to assume that college-age kids are going to flee a violent scene and, no, they shouldn't be expected to satisfy blindly the demands of armchair chivalrists. But the behaviour of men at University of Montreal and current Oprah-fed tendency towards blubbering on the likes of FaceBook do give me cause to suspect that many Gen-Y'ers are incapable of applying this notion:
"Next to obedience to lawful authority is a manly and determined resistance to lawless violence."
Sometimes you just have to grow the hell up fast: make some decisions and stick by them. If you can do so, do something. If you can't stop the inevitable, weigh it inside and move on. Decades of widespread nannying be damned, bad things will happen to you. Come of it being able to look yourself in the mirror with a modicum of pride.
Honestly, I like my chances better against the terrorists hijacking a plane with boxcutters than a crazy guy with two handguns. At least you have a realistic chance of wrestling away the boxcutters and having a chance to engage in a fair fight, plus you don't get cut down before you've even reached the point of being able to engage your enemy. Its far less suicidal than running at a guy with a gun.
Posted at 2007-04-21 17:51:05 [PermaLink]"Yes, I know it is harsh and heartless and easy to show armchair-courage... BUT these are legitimate questions and I bet that many who got out alive are feeling extreme guilt knowing that they could have done so much more."
If only Hallmark made a card you could send them.
"then blithely admit we wouldn't even try to throw a textbook at some zit faced geek."
Yes, a zit faced geek with two or more automatic handguns, who had just killed more than one person in front of you.
Right...throw a book at him. Kathy, do you even listen to yourself?
Damian, you are absolutely right on this one. Not only that, unless the student had a gun themselves, they would have been an absolute fool to even try to attack Cho.
Shaidle knows damn well that if ever faced with the same situation, she'd run like rabbit. Or cower under a desk and wet herself.
Kathy, did it ever occur to you that perhaps some of those 32 students died doing just what you are asking they do - rush the gunman in mid shooting spree in some Ramboesque fashion, only to get a bullet in the head for their troubles? Do you think if more of those students had hid under a desk, could have locked a door or run away that many more of them might be a live right now? Books and human flesh are no match for bullets.
But I guess passing judgment is your stock and trade, isn't it. So brave, you don't even allow comments on your blog.
I hope you never have to face the decision those kids faced that day. Ever. But if you do and survive, I hope if some self-righteous bitch on the internet calls you a coward for surviving, or implies those who died are also cowards for not stopping the madman, you get to punch her square in the throat, because she would deserve it.
In fact, if anybody from Hallmark is reading this...
GOOD JOB, WIMP [cartoon of a quivering, bandaged nerd in a hospital bed]
Then you open the card:
CIVILIZATION WASN'T BUILT ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU
(But hey, don't worry about it!)
"Shaidle knows damn well that if ever faced with the same situation, she'd run like rabbit. Or cower under a desk and wet herself."
Just wanted to clarify that this "Mike" is a different "Mike" than me. I'm reasonably certain this Mike is the "Rational Reasons" Mike, and the fact that I'm able to deduce that troubles me greatly. Way too much time spent online......
For the record, interloper Mike, your assertion is nothing more than gratuitous, self indulgent tripe. You've no idea how YOU would react, let alone how Kathy would. I disagree with her argument, however, if I were a betting man, my money would be on Kathy pulling a Jack Bauer and dining on some jugular, if the opportunity arose.
MIKE'S assertion is gratuitous and self-indulgent!?
Kathy said the murder victims were weak and cowardly, and should have been Ramboesque manly-men. And was supported by many other, er, deep thinkers.
Mike said Kathy was wrong, and that she'd probably do the same thing as the victims did in the same situation.
Yeah, Mike's really off-base there. What a loon.
"Mike said Kathy was wrong, and that she'd probably do the same thing as the victims did in the same situation."
M@, where do you get "probably" out of "Shaidle knows damn well....," she'd either flee or wet herself.
My, my. The pixels were hardly dry in the comments from the other Mike and myself, and in you ride to try a re-write for Mike's benefit. Revisionism usually has better prospects of success with the passage of time. I recommend something longer than 8-10 hours as a starting point.
Mike didn't just say Kathy was "wrong." He made a pronouncement on how Kathy would react in a hypothetical situation. His prediction that Kathy would cower and wet herself is a fantasy, because it's based not on any evidence, but rather his personal dislike for her.
He's entitled to his fantasies, but let's not pretend fantasies aren't gratuitous and self-indulgent.
Again, you're fixated on Mike's "fantasies", which, unfortunately, seem to better reflect the real world than Kathy's.
But Kathy's careful not to speak about the reality of a gun pointed at a person. She merely bemoans the sad passing of "bravery" and "resisting" and "dying in the attempt". Rupert Brooke would be proud -- arm's length heroism is easy, isn't it? There is some corner of a foreign field and all that. What fun. Kathy's calling was missed around, oh, let's call it 1914 or so.
But let's look even closer at the person you're choosing to defend in this little pantomime. Kathy states:
"Civilization wasn't built on people obeying their instincts, but in resisting them for something higher or dying in the attempt (or at least having the decency to lower their head in shame.)"
Now, doesn't this sound a little odd? Since she's typically sounding the clarion to man the ramparts for reactionism and resistance to change? Well, we only need to go a little further in the same comment to find
"Being old fashioned used to be part of what "conservativism" was all about..."
So being old fashioned and resisting instincts are different? But lo, she clarifies:
"We spend half our blog time bemoaning the death of the West at the hands of Muslim extremists"...
Sorry, remind me who's fantasizing, again, please?
"but then blithely admit we wouldn't even try to throw a textbook at some zit faced geek."
Ah, there we are. We must merely throw a textbook at some zit faced geek [who's firing a mere two handguns at us] and we'll show her that heroism, chivalry, esprit de corps, elan, and good old fashioned panache, are alive and well. Tally-ho!
"Now who's displaying bravado? At least my convictions are consistent."
Oh, her convictions -- her convictions that someone should have dodged the bullets and taken down the gunman, mind -- are consistent. Except that she contradicts herself in the same blog comment (conservatism is about resisting instincts, but making sure everything stays the same).
So, yeah, Mike's "fantasies" are a little lower on the gratuitous and self-indulgent scale than Kathy's fantasy about throwing a textbook and disarming the "zit-faced" (no he wasn't) killer.
Characterize Mike's comments and my comments any way you like. Kathy said someone should have thrown a textbook at the gunman. Is there anything any further at odds with reality than that?
M@, deconstructing Mike's fantasy does not mean I'm "fixated" on his fantasies. Your last post is largely an exercise in preaching to the choir. If you check my earlier comments in this thread, you'll find I disagree with Kathy's argument. My reasons are elaborated upon in this post as well:
[External Link]
If Mike wants to share with the rest of us his wet dream of Kathy wetting herself, then he should expect to be criticized for it. Mike made it personal with Kathy, not the other way around. If you want to make the case that Kathy is indulging in a fantasy of her own, fine. How that serves to rehabilitate Mike's comment is beyond me.