Let me show you how an American dies.
=========================

Exactly on the mark JT. I have heard over the past three days on where was the police? Why did it take so long? The police can't do a thing until a call is made and then it is with limitations. If the police were to storm the whole campus with a show of force, they would pay dearly for their "disrespect" for their constitutional rights. So, most police departments have the protocols and rules of engagement that would naturally slow their reaction time down.

If one or two students had the right to carry, they may have gotten excited and killed two innocents, but in the end save at least twenty students. It boggles the mind that people focus on the guns and not the motive. He could have bombed them, knifed them, drove a car into a pack of students,etc. This guy wanted to kill, not specifically with a gun. ww

Fantastic post, Jay Tea.

yeah, ms mackriss said he's a phony. she knows him in the biblical sense, remember????????

Good post. I think it's a good illustration on why gun control might be well intentioned, but it is extremely misguided and has the wrong effect. For whatever reason people still try to cling to this gun control argument is beyond me...

Don't forget the people who jumped the Shoebomber and saved lives, including their own.

Where in our society today are people taught to defend themselves? The only ones I can think are 1) teaching children to get away from predators and 2) teaching women self-defense from rapists.

Wonder what "metrosexual" Howard Dean would have done when faced with a gunman.

I agree with those above: excellent post. I also agree completely with your statement that "will is the critical element". It was certainly evident on the day of the massacre that this young man had a very strong will to carry out his perverted agenda. There may have been at least one student among those murdered/injured that given the opportunity would have had the will to fire back. I think having that opportunity in willing hands would have been well worth it.

Mark Steyn has similar thoughts at NRO.
==========================

"They are making an implicit guarantee: you don't need to protect yourself, because we are already protecting you."

That, in my opinion, is the best line of the post. Good point.

Jay, well said.

It is better to die trying, than to die cowering in a corner.

Sometimes, even when you know you can't win, you have to fight.

When I was 17, a senior in high school, I was attacked by someone with a knife. It was in the school cafeteria. The kid tried to pick a fight with me, and I refused to be baited. He persisted, and pretty soon, I knew he had a knife (I did not). The clue was no one stiff-arms you with their left hand while they keep their right in their back pocket unless they have something hidden in that pocket.

Once I realized my opponent was armed, I tried to stall the start of the fight -- waiting for a teacher to interfere. Out of the corner of an eye, I saw one male teacher -- who taught science -- come up to see what the commotion was. Then seeing a fight developing he turned around and walked away.

I suddenly realized what Jay talked about in his post -- my safety was my responsibility. I could not run away. So I kept stalling, hoping someone would intervene, until he finally hauled out the knife. I blocked his first blow with my forearm. He landed one blow on me before I closed range. It glanced off my ribs.

By the time the fight was over (it took four people to drag me off of him) he was on the ground, with one of my knees on his chest, one on the knife arm and both hands around his neck. I was also banging the back of his head against a concrete floor. And yes, I was trying to kill him. I though he had nicked an artery and I wanted to make sure he did not stab me while I was unconscious from loss of blood.

He was so badly injured he could not get away. Why was that important? Because in the confusion of seeing me dripping blood (no one had realized a knife was involved until the fight was over -- all of my wounds were on my chest, and I had my back to everyone), the perp had been left in the cafeteria, while I was taken to the school nurse. The school cop went to the scene to take photos, and was surprised to see my attacker still there -- covered in my blood.

It turns out he was one of a pair of identical twins who had been terrorizing my home town for about five years. One would rob a liquor store, gas station or stop-and-rob, while the other was at a party. Then they would play good twin-bad twin -- there was always reasonable doubt.

Now the cops had one of them red-handed. I pressed charges. The other twin also went to jail shortly after, getting caught without the twin defence.

what did I learn from that?

1.) Resistance is better than acqueiesance. I got hospitalized due to that fight, but I would have been anyway -- and I might have been killed had I not resisted. Besides, by ending the situation with me in control meant that I was not a "victim." I was a victor.

2. Resistance is better for society. If everyone resisted criminals -- to the limit of their ability -- the price of crime would be higher. The guy wou attacked me did so because he felt immune from the consequences of his actions. He had five years experience to back that up. NO ONE had resisted one of his attacks before. If some one had and he had gotten bloodied by it, he may have been more reluctant to attack someone in a crowded high school lunch room. As it was, because I resisted, I broke up a crime wave in my town.

If I had a time machine and could go back, I would do it again. If it happened to me tomorrow I would do it again. I might get killed -- but I would probably get killed anyway, and I'll bet I can pop his eyes out of his skull before I die. And the guy that attacked me would wonder when the next time he met some crazy would be if kept attacking people.

So remember, the next time a crazed gunman comes along, don't go gentle into that good night. If you have no other means of defence, throw something at him. Then something else, then pick up a chair and throw that. It's for the children.

Jay, thanks for the link to the original article.

Unfortunately all I could ineloquently think of is the stereotypical Nancy or Obama-like response to this incident:

Horrible casualties in colleges! We're fighting a hopeless battle against determined mad men. We need to pull out now and save more lives! All kids out of college by August! Electronic-only classrooms! Stop sending Federal money to colleges unless they can guarantee no more carnage! Its all Bush's fault!

The URL references several key cases, but the full context of Riss v. New York is important. Ms. Riss was the victim of escalating violence by a former boyfriend. The pattern is easy to recognize, and the probability that Ms. Riss was going to be severely injured or killed was extremely high. She and her family repeatedly asked the police to protect her and to enforce the restraining order, but they refused. In desperation, she applied for a firearms permit, but it was denied on the grounds that personal protection was not a "compelling need" After all, that's what the police were for. In the state court of appeals, two of the three judges issued the usual finding: you can't sue city or state authorities because they don't have to protect you, but one of the judges got it right. He said, in effect, you can't deny someone the basic tools for self defense, and then blame the victim for failing to protect themselves.

I urge everyone who hasn't done so to read Snyder's essay "A Nation of Cowards". This idea is explored in detail:

Most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first." . . .
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.

[Emphasis is mine.]

Mark L, I had a very similar incident, but with a gun. I was walking home from a bar with a friend about 2am when we got held up from behind. That area of town is known for it's illegal aliens, and this was one of them. He stood behind me and slightly to my left with the gun to my neck, my friend in front of me, both of us with our arms out parallel to the ground. I spoke calmly to him telling him I was just going to reach back into my pocket with my right hand and get my wallet. Inside, I was shitting my pants, scared to death, yet at the same time furious, raging mad that another human would do this to me. I slowly moved my right arm down toward my right back pocket, and then I snapped, swung around and "chopped" his arm knocking the gun to the ground. As I did so, I yelled to my buddy, who couldn't really see what was up as he was looking straght ahead, to grab the guy as I dove to the ground to jump on the gun. The guy started to take off, no doubt shitting his pants knowing that we surely would have hurt him, badly. And I would have. He got away. I felt the same way looking back, that that was some scary ass shit and I could've been killed, but I wasn't going to be a victim. Needless to say, my then girlfriend, now wife, was none too happy about my reaction to the guy!

Thanks for the stories, Mark L and D-Hoggs. I read the "Armed Citizen" in my NRA magazine every month. I've only had one armed confrontation and it ended well because I had a Doberman in my car and a .357 in my hand. (He sideswiped me on a lonely mountain road in Colorado, then after we both stopped, he came to the car grinning and saying "You're going to do exactly as I say." Then my dog silently bared her teeth at him -- she wasn't much of a barker -- and I held up the gun. He hustled out of there like his pants were on fire.)

I've taught my four kids that if there's a shooter in the school, to run away. Don't obey the teacher, don't stay under the desk, get out and don't stop until you're home. The whole concept of "hunkering down" only works if you have the ability to defend the doorway, and teachers are unarmed.

In Colorado last year a filthy creature entered a school in Bailey and lined up six girls in a classroom. He ordered the boys and the teacher to leave, and they did. He then fondled the girls, raped a couple of them, and killed one of them and himself.

I hope those boys and that teacher never get a good night's sleep for the rest of their lives.

"They are making an implicit guarantee: you don't need to protect yourself, because we are already protecting you."

If they wanted the University to be a gun-free zone they needed to build an inpenetrable barrier around it and post guards with metal detectors at every enterance and screen every person and every object that passes through that barrier. (Not unlike what happens at airports.)

The idea that you could create a "gun free zone" by passing some legislation or rule is far beyond stupid. Whoever is responsible for declaring the Unversity a "gun free zone" bears the second most responsibility for this tragedy, second only to the killer himself.

Every day we hear the 'give them the money and they'll go away' argument that doesn't work in most cases. It is a cowardly response pushed by the democrats here and around the world. Safety and peace only comes when the 'bad' guys know your will hurt them, seriously. Show Iran some before and after pictures of Japan's end in WWII, and make a firm promise. Quit the BS or this is just a sample of your end. Give the criminals some long prison sentences and keep them there.
Does anyone really expect the current congressional leadership to 'protect' this country? Does anyone really respect the current congressional leadership (other than mad dog political types who want to change the country to a different form of government, non elected)?

Excellent post!

I wrote an email to both my sons yseterday morning, that pretty well echoes (though is not as eloquent as) your piece. Here is what I wrote them:
++++++++++++++++++
My wonderful and precious sons...

I have waited a couple days after the Virginia Tech tragedy to collect my thoughts and send this email.

God forbid you should ever find yourselves in any situation even remotely like what happened there, or on Flight 93, or at Columbine, or at Breslan, or at...(the list is, sadly, too long and growing). But if you DO ever find yourselves in any situation even remotely like what happened this week...FIGHT, and don't stop fighting! It is your best, and maybe ONLY way to increase your odds of survival. Don't let anyone ever line you up against a wall. I am not blaming the victims at Virginia Tech. They were badly served by a college administration that didn't even warn them to "be on the lookout...". While we never know what we would do in a crisis situation, it is important to plan. And the plan is simple: Fight!

At the risk of sounding like Tim Allen's character in 'Galaxy Quest': "Never give up...never surrender". Not a joke.

While your mother and I would do everything in our power to come to your aid, it might not be possible...and you can count on NO ONE else to come to your rescue. Sorry to be so dramatic, but there it is.

I adore you both. Stay safe, stay vigilant.

All my love,
Dad

Excellent post, JayTea.

Police, more appropriately known as law enforcement, are a stop gap measure that prevent things from spreading 'too far' or as Jay said, to protect society. Law enforcement cannot protect always protect an individual from an immediate threat. That's why the right to self-defense is so important. Ultimately, I'm responsible for me and I can, hopefully, count on the state for backup.

Each individual is the last line of defense, and we expect the Government to be the first. The Government (Federal, State or Local) has to provide for the common welfare of our society.

As an example, and contrary to what was directed to my comments yesterday, there is no reason, logic or right to own guns that can hold a 33 round clip, or in this case a 17-round clip.

If clip sizes were limited to 6 or 8 rounds the victims (in this case) would have had a better chance to rush the attacker as he would be forced to reload or switch weapons two to two 1/2 times more frequently.

Here was McCain's comment on high capacity clips:
..when asked whether ammunition clips sold to the public should be limited in size, said, "I don't think that's necessary at all."

Why that's a fantastic idea Barney. It's completely out of the realm of possibility that anyone could carry more than one clip of bullets so limiting clip size would limit the number of shots they could get off without reloading.

Yup it's totally out of the question to carry multiple clips that could be changed in a fraction of a second.

/scarcam off

Barney, I actually agree with limiting clip size, and a few other sensible gun restrictions. I spent 8 years in the Marines and know first-hand the incredible firepower such weapons provide.

Of course, this would ONLY make sense if the law creating these restrictions was worded something like this:
"Anyone found to be in possession of a XX round clip will be automatically sentenced to XX YEARS in prison". The only exceptions could be for licensed gun collectors, etc.

Revolvers, and 10 or less round clips should have no restrictions.

I live in California, the land of the ludicrous plea-bargain. If "restrictions" didn't come with automatic mandatory sentencing then they would be worse than worseless.

Barney, forgive me for stating the obvious, but criminals tend to break laws. Especially minor laws that get in the way of the big laws they intend to break.

His guns were already illegal on the campus, and at least one of them had its serial number removed.

Toss in that there are zillions of these magazines already floating around. Just passing a law ain't gonna make 'em go away.

Toss in that he had two weapons, meaning he could keep one loaded and handy while reloading. Maybe, if he'd had smaller clips, he'd have taken along a third or fourth gun. That's what I would have done.

Or chained the doors and set the building on fire. That's not that big a step; he did chain some of the doors.

He decided to commit his rampage, and kept doing it as long as he had victims. No one stopped him.

There's an old saying that "it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools." It's applicable here, Barney. You're blaming the tools for the deeds of the tool-user.

J.

P. Bunyan...while I agree to some extent with your comeback to Barney, I do believe that some of the massive clip sizes do make it easier for someone like the twisted moron at VT to wreak havoc.

As I said in my response to Barney, though, the reality is that I don't favor ANY restrictions of this kind because they would ONLY be enforced on law-abiding citizens, NOT on criminals.

One more name you could have added who I think would fit right in:
Fabrizio Quattrocchi.
Google it.

BG, I won't waste bandwith on pointing out how the two sidearms used operate, but I will strongly disagree with your opening line.
I, barneyg, am the first line. Always. My governmet, and other citizens, and most important, my family is what I hope to always protect. What good am I if I wait for "the government" or "the police"?
The Common Welfare? That is only constructed by the actions, not the forced inactions, of each of us.
No, bg, I will not wait for the police to "handle things", nor will I expect my fellow citizens to somehow shield or protect me and my family. I am the first line.

J

Great post. I wrote something similar on the 17th called Conclusions. When did we forget about 9-11?
I was not there but I do wonder why one did so much to many...especially college men.

Excellent post. Great comments.

No problem Justrand. Barney is just a typical far leftist who lives in a fabricated state of reality. I just like to point that out from time to time.

This is one of this issues I'm rather extreme on. If it were up to me I'd pass a law requiring everyone to carry a concealed firearm. I wouldn't punish those who didn't of course, but if such a law were in existence violent crime would drop to next to nothing.

If they wanted the University to be a gun-free zone they needed to build an inpenetrable barrier around it and post guards with metal detectors at every enterance and screen every person and every object that passes through that barrier. (Not unlike what happens at airports.)

The problem with this is that, in this case, nutjob was bound and determined to do this. You could have had the building surrounded by the 82nd Airborne Division with fighter cover overhead and he still would have tried it. It would have neded differently, of course.

If clip sizes were limited to 6 or 8 rounds the victims (in this case) would have had a better chance to rush the attacker as he would be forced to reload or switch weapons two to two 1/2 times more frequently.

Good point because we know how well the "gun free zone" rules worked.

In a nanny state, nanny looks after you, just like she did in the nursery. You are not expected or encouraged to look after yourself in a nanny state, because you are assumed to be unqualified or incapable of doing it, and you might mess it up if you tried. You can't handle your Social Security private account. We must do it for you.

Wait to be rescued. In addition to the people noted above, I'd like to add the kid who comandeered one of the idle school busses in New Orleans during Katrina. He hotwired one (that wasn't in Nagle's flooded lot) to start, loaded it up with his relatives and friends from a poor neighborhood and drove them to safety in Houston.

"Don't try to be a hero" is the message we send out too often today.

First of all, the term is "magazine" not "clip".

Banning high-capacity magazines is a stupid idea for several reasons, including:

1. As in this case, if I can control a group of people (e.g. line them up against a wall), then I can control the situation so that I can fire and reload before someone can get to me. The capacity of the magazine doesn't matter.

If a group is willing and able to rush the person with the gun, the reload time is not important. The group would be foolish to take the bullets and wait for violent offender to reload.