Wednesday - April 18, 2007

Guns in School - with post post script


Category Image Guns in School - with post post script


When did guns become illegal in school? I remember when I was in elementary school that kids brought BB guns in all the time. Well, not exactly "all" the time, but from time to time. It never occurred to me that doing so was illegal. Maybe the principal didn't like it, but that wasn't entirely clear. I only recall one kid getting in trouble because he shot his BB gun and the BB ricocheted off a tree and hit another kid in the eye.

Okay, I admit that I never learned if that was true. I didn't know the kid but he was famous in our school. I wish I could remember his name.
I remember everyone talking about John what's his name, saying his name over and over, and repeating the story of how he ricocheted his BB gun and blinded someone else. Or was it himself? I forget. The point I'm making is that he brought a BB gun to school and it wasn't that big of a deal except that he hurt someone.

More than that, I often brought my cubscout jack knife to school. Other kids regularly brought knives, big and small (well, perhaps there was a size limit), to school. It's not like we lived in the country, but back then kids were expected to carry knives every day. And I'm not that old. It's just what kids do.

Nowadays I read absurd stories about kids being expelled for bringing knives to school. Not hunting knives, not jack knives, but steak knives. I don't understand how you're supposed to cut birthday cakes without knives.

Nowadays I read absurd stories about kids drawing pictures of guns and being expelled.

Nowadays I read absurd stories about all sorts of craziness that has been too well documented in other forums.

I don't remember massacres in schools when I was young. Perhaps they happened, but I don't think so. I don't know if there is a correlation between these developments, but I suspect they are related somehow.

I'm reluctant to find fault with the victims of the most recent massacre at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, but I'm amazed that some students allowed themselves to be lined up against a wall and shot. This has happened to people for a few hundred years now, so there's no reason to think that Virginians would be different. But at a school, there are plenty of books to throw at a shooter, there are chairs to throw, there were young men who could have done something. Have we so emasculated our young men that they no longer think to protect women?

The reason terrorism works is the same reason that a lone assassin can be so effective in Blacksburg. One man might want to fight back, but he is doomed unless others act with him. Without prior planning or training, no individual can be sure that others will join him in fighting. Without the pack, the lone wolf is sure to be the next victim with no chance of being effective. It's easy to see why people are reluctant to fight back.

There will be a lot of talk about gun control, but it won't go anywhere, Michael Eisner notwithstanding. Politicians have learned that this is a loser strategy.

The only real solution is not more guns in schools, though I'm not opposed to that. The answer is to have a cultural change to encourage men to fight the bad guy. I don't mean vigilante actions, I mean that when confronted with immediate dangers, they fight back. Throw books, distract the shooter. Tackle him. Do whatever it takes to stop him.

One gunman can't stand up to a dozen men attacking him simultaneously, no matter how many guns he has. One dictator can't stand up to tens of thousands of determined citizens, no matter how many tanks he has.

We need to relearn how to stay free from tyranny. It's the same lesson on how to be free from terrorism. It's the same lesson on how to be free from deranged shooters.

Post script: I've learned now that several students did fight back to protect themselves by barricading their classroom door, though not to stop the shooter. I suppose that is the best we can hope for until we develop a social pact to fight and stop maniacs like this. I propose that at freshman orientation, that all students, particularly the men, be instructed that they are expected to fight in such a situation. Just the expectation is probably sufficient to spur action.

Post post script: It's come to my attention that my best friend in the world, my brother has taken umbrance with this rant. I want to re-iterate that I am not finding fault with the victims of this shooting. Because we do not have a culture that expects people to act against maniacs, no individual would have been justified in believing that if he acted that others would also act. Acting alone against an armed maniac is suicide. The tragedy is that the expectation in our culture is not to fight, it is to submit or flee.

He further points out that the problem is not that the victims had any blame, which I agree with, but that society picked on the poor maniac, creating his insane state. I reject this completely. Yes, people should not pick on others or tease them, but this is human behavior that will not change. I encourage him and all others to teach your children to not pick on those that are different or deficient, but someone will pick on them. We cannot help it if someone retreats when picked on, provoking more behavior for being picked on.

My brother didn't say, but likely would say, that society needs to find a way to find these nutjobs before they become maniacal killers. With this I agree. But as I read in Donald Sensing's blog today, One Hand Clapping, quoting Aesop and the mouse's suggestion of belling the cat, it's easy to propose impossible solutions. Donald's subsequent blog entries discuss other issues concerning this topic, and summarizes correctly that there are no easy answers here.

My brother and best friend, and I am at pains to ensure I stay thus in his esteem, also points out that it's not wrong for people to comply with the orders of a man with a gun in his hand, nor is it wrong to want your child to be among those that survive. He tells me that he will always want his son to jump to safety rather than confront the maniac to stop him. To this, I say he is correct. It is not wrong to flee to safety. I will never second guess anyone who does that. They are in the situation, they know their own capabilities and are the best judge for how they should act. It is certainly not wrong to want your child to survive such an attack. However, saving your own skin to allow a maniac to kill others is not wrong, but it is not worthy of praise, either. I wonder how many of those that jumped out the windows to safety will think back for the rest of their lives how they allowed a 76 year old man to sacrifice himself without help so that they could live. How many others were killed after they escaped instead of helping the 76 year old man fight the maniac? There is no fault in what they did. But there is nothing honorable, either. They lived. I have no regard for their feelings, they suffered no wrong other than being put in fear. For those that died or were wounded, I feel nothing but immense sorrow. In the case of the few that acted to help others, admiration.

My rant here is not to blame anyone at Virginia Tech. My point is that there is no blame except for the maniac. If people picked on him, that was no excuse to murder others. He is without question the only guilty party in this tragedy. My other point is that if people want to do something to help minimize future maniacal attacks, we should change the culture of compliance with maniacs. I think it is generally expected that an airplane hijacker's demands will no longer be agreed to by ovine passengers. We need to expand that expectation to attacks such as this one, too.

A more scholarly approach to the same thing I've been saying, ridiculing the "education" of the maniac can be found on the website of The American Thinker. He writes what I would have loved to have said. My approach is simpler, his is more thorough in explaining why we no longer have a culture of people who fight to stop evil.

Click here for a separate link to this Drivel  
Send me your two cents
|

Sunday - March 18, 2007

The NRA is Worthless


Category Image The NRA is Worthless


I've been a member of the National Rifle Association, mostly because they have a big name, but not because I've been impressed with anything they've done. As supposed supporters of the Second Amendment, they've done nothing to advance the cause of this precious right in the courts. They have almost exclusively acted in the legislature and have never brought a case to court to affirm the right to keep and bear arms. They have, in their century and more of existence, allowed the myth of the "collective" right to bear arms to become established in the minds of many people in this nation. Not once did they take a case to court.

So why do they exist? Well, pretty much they exist to take your money. I only pay the minimal dues, but I get bombarded almost daily by expensive mailings begging me for more money, threatening that congress is going to take my guns away if I don't give them more and more money. I'm glad I refrained from rewarding their do-nothing policy.

The defenders of the Second Amendment just got a tremendous boost in the courts this month. The District Court of the District of Columbia ruled that their three-decade old absolute gun ban is unconstitutional. No thanks to the NRA.

So how did this happen? One man acted, alone, with his own money. Robert Levy attended law school at the age of 53 and decided enough is enough.

The NRA has been shown up. Publicly on display as not being willing to do with the backing of millions of members what one man with principle was able to do.

They won't get another cent of my money. Ever.

Of the two political parties, the republicans have recently been more in favor of gun rights, but the end result of this decision is likely to help the democrats more than the republicans. Here's how:
Since 1994, the democrat party has gotten hammered by the electorate for many issues, but the biggest loser for them has been their attempt to confiscate and eliminate gun ownership in our great republic. As a party they have avoided the issue like the homely girl in school before a Sadie Hawkins Dance, but they have a hard core fringe that won't let them avoid the topic completely. Since their stand on most issues is anti-American, they need every fringe vote they can get. This is the reason for the severe irrational reactions to almost anything the opposition does, even when it is exactly what they've advocated in the past.

If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, and I suspect they will do that and more, that will eliminate gun control as a viable platform for their party. They will no longer have to kow tow to the fringe on this issue, they can simply shrug their shoulders and say, "See? We tried, but the court has spoken and we can't pursue this any further."

This decision, if upheld, frees them to pursue the rest of their adoption of the communist manifesto and the furtherance of Hanoi Jane's and Murtha's dreams.

Click here for a separate link to this Drivel  
Send me your two cents
|

Monday - February 23, 2004

The Second Amendment is About to Die


Category Image The Second Amendment is About to Die


The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, at one time protected by the Second Amendment is about to die . And you know who is going to kill it? Gun owners and gun manufacturers.
It's all quite simple really. By creating a temporary ban on "assault" weapons several years ago, combined with the patently unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968, the price of automatic weapons and now "assault" weapons has skyrocketed far beyond what they would have been worth otherwise. Letting the "assault" weapon ban expire will mean that those who sell guns for a living will immediately lose a lot of money.

You won't hear them speaking of supporting an extension of the ban, but then it's only natural for them to roll over like a whimpering puppy if it's extended.

For example, a friend of mine is a class III weapons dealer and I mentioned to him that I have always regretted not buying a M-60 machine gun I once saw for sale in 1985 for $6000. I was a young lieutenant with more money than I could spend, but I decided it would be too frivolous. My friend told me that that same weapon, because of the ban, is now worth well over $30,000. If the ban expires, its worth plummets immediately back to one fifth of its current value.

Now imagine that you have a large revolving inventory. This could bankrupt your business.

No, there are probably very few weapons dealers looking to get this repealed, but they know better than to say it in front of their customers.

Click here for a separate link to this Drivel  
Send me your two cents
|