Thursday, September 14, 2006

I ain't goin' out like that...

This may come as a shock to people who only know me through my carefully-constructed web persona, but I'm really pretty much a shiny, happy person. I like kittens and flowers and blue skies full of fluffy clouds and smiling Mr. Sun. Also, I carry a gun.

Now, here in the upscale west end 'burbs of Knoxville, the odds of me ever needing to actually use my gat for anything other than a spot of recreational target practice are about the same as the odds of me winning the Powerball jackpot (and I don't buy tickets) but I carry one around just the same, more as a concealed symbol of my personal creed than anything else, the way some folks carry a St. Christopher's medal in their pockets. And my creed is a simple one: "I ain't goin' out like that."

Imagine a happy college campus, set in tightly-gun-controlled Canada. Not just in Canada, but in the part of Canada where they speak French, a language with more words for "surrender" than the Eskimos have for "snow". The only place that could be safer would be at a convention for Mother Theresa impersonators, right? Right. At least until some Emoid freak with a bad 'do, a Matrix wardrobe, and a cheesy plastic Beretta popgun shows up and tries to live out his Quake fantasies in real life.
"I saw the gunman who was dressed in black and at that time he was shooting at people," student Michel Boyer told CTV. "I immediately hit the floor. It was probably one of the most frightening moments of my life."
I ain't goin' out like that. Whether it's some Columbine wannabe who's heard the backward-masked messages on his Marilyn Manson discs, distressed daytrader off his Prozac, homegrown Hadji sympathetic with his oppressed brothers in Baghdad, or a bugnuts whackjob picking up Robert Frost quotes transmitted from Langley on the fillings in his molars, I am going to do my level best to smoke that goblin before my carcass goes on the pile. I am not going to go out curled into a fetal ball and praying for help that won't arrive in time.
Barone said a police officer emerged from a corner next to the cafeteria and fired a shot in the direction of the gunman no more than several yards away and missed him.
Even if the police are right there, it might not do me any good. Heck, I might not do me any good. But, dammit, I am going to try. If a 51 year-old nurse can overcome a hammer-wielding psycho with her bare hands, the least I can do is go out on my feet. I'm not going to wait for the coup de grace under a desk; I'm not going get in the abductor's car; I'm not going to comply with their demands; I'm not going gently.
Barone said as they were crawling out toward an exit they saw a girl who had been shot in the torso and who was face down surrounded by a pool of blood.

He said officers told them: "Don't look, don't look. Keep going out."
I ain't goin' out like that.




UPDATE: Marko weighs in with his views, as well as the Quote of the Day:
(As a side note, "killed by Canadian police" is high up on my list of "most uncool ways to die"...so much for going out in a blaze of glory, loser-boy.)

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's long past time to start banning Victim Disarmement Zones.

B&N said...

You're armed, as all of us here know, and I'm sure you are plenty proficient with your arms, but more importantly, you've got the right attitude for confronting the goblins.

Fisticuffs if necessary, but I'd prefer using the gun in a situation similar to the one in Montreal, no doubt.

pdb said...

Anon: Keep in mind, this is Canada we're talking about here. Even if this dude burst into Ecole Polytechnique's 1911 Gunsmithing 101 class and all the students were holding fully functional sidearms, he still would have taken them all out.

Canadians are soft, docile, toothless creatures indoctrinated from birth that violence never solves anything, and that the best thing to do when the Morlocks come for you is to relax, offer no resistance and let them have their way with you in the hopes that they'll let you live to see a grief councillor.

To put it mildly, frak that.

Disregarding the two firearms I have in arms length to me at the moment, I can identify at least ten items on and around my desk that I could use to kill an attacker. Hell, I'd rather be armed with a pointy stick and a furious rage than a death ray and a rabbit's timidity.

Guns, knives, mace, saps, etc., are all tools. Your weapon is holstered 'twixt your ears.

Hobie said...

Amen, I'm not going out like that either. Even if you don't have fire superiority, you have maneuver.

HollyB said...

I'm with you, Tam. I ain't goin' out like that. And I ain't lettin' anybody around me go out like that either. I take it as my duty, as a responsible adult, to protect not only myself, but those around me who are incapable of protecting themselves, i.e. small children, the aged, the infirm, the unarmed.
I remember a thread on The High Road a couple of years ago that asked responders to look around the room and find objects, other than firearms, with which to defend themselves, should a baddie burst into the room that very second. And then to extend that thinking into every room of your home.
It was an extremely educational experience for me to think about everyday items I could use as weapons. As pdb and Col. Cooper advise, your best weapon is your mind and thinking ahead, being prepared, having the mindset that you will NOT be a victim.
I've moved since that last mental exercise, so I guess I need to do another inventory of alternative weapons. Someting to slow the baddies down, besides the dogs, until I can get to one of the firearms.
Holly

Paul Simer said...

Ain't it great that I can't legally carry my pistol in our great state? The most I get away with is a can of FOX, and even that would probably get me in trouble.

qewuuzpk!

Paul Simer said...

To clarify for others: I'm a college student, with a permit, who carries everywhere but school.

I figure I'm more likely to be hit by a car and found to be carrying a gun than actually use the gun in self-defense.

kuyqzy!

Anonymous said...

"...French, a language with more words for "surrender" than the Eskimos have for "snow"."

Sooo clever! Thanks for this statement. May I have permission to use it?

I work in Paris every summer, and enjoy the interaction with French persons.

I appreciate your phrase crafting.

Tam said...

"May I have permission to use it?"

Go 'head. Heck, I've always believed that blatant copyright infringement is the sincerest form of flattery. :)

Brett L said...

As a Texas Ex, I'd just like to note that when Mr. Whitman was up in the Tower, a number of students went back to their dorms, checked out their deer rifles from behind the counter, and sought to return fire.

By the time I got there, it was no longer school policy to allow deer rifles - even checked behind a counter - in the dorms.

Still, I don't think it would have gone down that way at the Jester cafeteria yesterday. I know some people with legal permits to carry who may have disregarded policy on carrying on college property.

Anonymous said...

I think everyones chances are better if the crowd rushes the gunman than if everyone sits in fear and waits their turn for the gunman to get to them.

Diamondback said...

Unfortunately this will only lead to more anti-gun legislation in Canada and will be used by the Brady Bunch domestically to call for more gun bans. I can see Ted Kennedy holding up the “deadly automatic” Beretta Storm calling for its immediate ban in all states now.

BigDirigible said...

Canadians are soft, docile, toothless creatures indoctrinated from birth that violence never solves anything

Hmmm. In his World War One history, Real War, Captain B.H. Liddell-Hart - who knew a thing or two about trench warfare, tank blitzes, etc - called the Canadians "matchless assault troops."

Did the WW1 experience beat it out of them? Doubtful - they were still pretty good by the Dieppe raid, 22 years and another war later.

So what the hell happened?

Art Eatman said...

Re Whitman: Ground fire drove him from his south-side position around to the northwest corner where he was killed. Ground fire first forced him from shooting from over the parapet to shooting from the drain openings--and then away from those.

It was not police ground fire. The police did not have any serious rifles; what they had were iron-sighted.

I had just moved to west Austin, where my scoped .270 was located. All I could do was direct ambulances and keep would-be gawkers from stopping and gawking.

Trebor said...

Well said Tam.

I'd rather be like Mark Wilson, and die in the attempt, then be shoot while laying on my belly with my hand over my eys.

Of course, I'd rather get the bad guy before he get's me, but you can't predict what will happen when bullets start flying. Sometimes training and tactics prevail, and sometimes the bad guy gets lucky.

All you can do is do everything you can ahead of time to stack the odds in your favor at the moment of truth.

Ryan Waxx said...

I ain't goin' out like that.

Actually, you almost certainly would have. In what state is it legal to carry your gun inside a school?

And what employers allow concealed carry, other than security firms? Hmm?

Its long past time for people in office/college/etc to SUE the owners if they forbid law-abiding gun ownership yet fail to take effective measures against marauders.

TallDave said...

One crazy gunman + legally disarmed populace = lots of people shot.

One crazy gunman + legally armed populace = one dead crazy gunman.

Tennessee Budd said...

Coincidental that you should post those thoughts today, Tam: My coworker & I had to go to the neighboring state for an onsite. Naturlich, I took my carry piece with me.
We broke for lunch, went uptown, parked, and before locking up I pocketed said weapon. Coworker (a former Marine, for God's sake--you'd think HE would understand) asked why I carry it. I told him I fully expect to never have to use my weapon in a life-threatening situation; that said, you never know when such a situation might arise. In short, I'd rather have it & not need it than need it & not have it.
Ryan Waxx: Who said anything about "legally" ?

T.Stahl said...

As Gerald McRaney put it in an episode of Simon&Simon:
"You may kill me - but don't expect any assistance."

Ron B said...

To the "Canadians are docile, toothless creatures" commenter.

Go frak yourself. Not to be a troll. But judging a bunch of 16-19 year old kids for being afraid when a man was shooting them indiscriminately, speaks volumes more about your self-delusions than it does about them. Or their country.

The guy had an automatic rifle, for frag's sakes. There is no way anyone could have prevented this, and your self-righteous BS pisses me off. How's that for docile?

Anonymous said...

Canadians are soft, docile, toothless creatures indoctrinated from birth that violence never solves anything, and that the best thing to do when the Morlocks come for you is to relax,

Boy, you have never been to Alberta.
We make US Marines look like Cindy Sheehan/Vegan/Green Peacers...

Eastern Canada does not = all of Canada.

Ron B said...

Having read my comment, I wish I would have cooled off for a bit. I should say that I like everyone's attitude here. Take charge of your own life, and all that.

But I take issue with the idea that these teenagers should have been ready to die in a suicide charge against a crazy man with a rifle. Running away was the smartest thing to do.

Also perhaps a few comments struck a patriotic nerve on me. So, all the snarkiness was directed at people who think Canadians are cowardly. Those people clearly don't know their history, and should perhaps consider reading up on the War of 1812.
-Alberta Boy

Bruce said...

So, explain to me again why you're not in my blogroll yet?

Oh, sorry, I was just talking to myself there.

From one of mylittle missives on this subject:

The truly sad part of this story is that even if the Province of Quebec had enacted Vermont-style CCW laws, it's likely (as in 99.9999% likely), given the environment where this incident took place, that an overwhelming number of people there would have followed the advice spelled out in the Self Defense for Liberals Handbook to the letter, and CHOSEN to remain unarmed...FOR THE CHILDREN.

But, hey, at least they would have had the opportunity, as a free people, to make that personal choice on their own terms. Imagine that, a world where the government has no say in how you choose to use AND PROTECT your body! Now, THAT would be "progressive".

[snip]

Surely, we can get the National Organization for Women behind us as we try to loosen the restrictions on women's ability to protect their uteruses from being perforated by psychotic gunmen. Right?

Yeah...didn't think so.


Cheers!

- Bruce

Billy Beck said...

"Go down gamblin'
Say it when you're runnin' low
Go down gamblin'
You may never have to go"


(Blood Sweat & Tears -- 1971)

Word up.

pdb said...

ron b: I lived in Canada for 20 boring years. And yes, I've been to Alberta. Looked a lot like Ontario with cowboy hats.

Yes, Canada used to have balls and a presence on the international scene. Hell, at the end of WWII they had the world's 3rd largest floating navy, and unlike the French, earned a seat at the UNSEC.

I'm not sure what happened between then and now. I'm sure Trudeau and the metric system had a lot to do with it. Maybe it was the loss of the 2-line pass? Who knows?

But it's not up for debate that Canada now has ingrained into its culture the soft-serve multiculti testicleless passivity currently being favored in France. "Europe without the castles."

And you're goddamn right I'm saying that the victims should've rushed the shooter. He had a semi-auto pistol caliber carbine, not a full power rifle, so basically he had a bulky pistol that's easier to take away. Pistol bullets don't magically instantly incapacitate the target, and as the after action results showed (multiple wounded, only one dead) aren't always fatal.

Better they try to win than beg for their lives cowered under desks.

That you feel differently proves that you're a Canadian. And my point.

ron said...

pdb,

I'll agree that rushing the guy would be better than nothing. No kidding.

But it takes a bigger man than me to judge a bunch of teenagers for being afraid in a crazy situation. Yeah, they should have said "That's a semi-auto pistol caliber carbine! We can take that away from him easily!"

If you ever come back to Alberta, pick a bar, any bar, and start spouting off what you've said here. Then see what happens.

AndyS said...

One crazy gunman + legally disarmed populace = lots of people shot.

One crazy gunman + legally armed populace = lots of people shot by crazy gunman + lots of peoople shot by wildly firing civilians + one dead crazy gunman.

The problem is, you guys always assume that the gun-toting citizens on the scene will have:

* superb judgment about what situations warrant resorting to the gun
* top-notch training and years of experience in the handling of violent situations
* excellent marksmanship

These conditions may well apply to each and every reader of this blog but they surely don't apply to the general population.

Would you trust the general public to operate motor vehicles if there were no speed limits? No way! And that's because you don't trust the judgment, experience, and ability of the average driver.

If we can't trust people to drive safely, why should we expect them to handle guns safely?

Tam said...

"Would you trust the general public to operate motor vehicles if there were no speed limits?"

Considering that the general public ignores them anyway, that's kind of a poor analogy.

Believe me, working at an indoor range, I've seen the general public shoot. I've seen them drive, too.

I still believe they should have the freedom to do both.

I'll tell you what I don't trust: The concept of "prior restraint"; penalizing someone for what they might do.

AndyS said...

Tam:

I come not to troll, but to understand... so please be patient or tell me to go if you're not in the mood.

My analogy may be poor but I'd really be interested to hear you defend what I see as the core issue -- which is that the arguments made in this blog all presume a level of skill and experience that can't reasonably be expected of a "legally armed populace".

Anonymous said...

AndyS:

You're presupposing that we just stand up and give everyone a gun, say, 'There ya go dear, now you be careful with that, it can be dangerous.'

I doubt anyone here thinks that's a good idea. The best bet would be to make it legal and put social stigma on any misuse of your firearm. Whether that's to impress the ladies or whatever.

I'd personally advocate making everyone pass a verbal test similar to what people wanting a driver's license had to go through in much of Europe (don't know what they have to do now) before granting a CCW license. You do want to make sure that anyone with a CCW is competent in the gun's use, both the how and the when. And if they do pass, they get to carry it wherever they feel it's appropriate.

But is there any question that it would be more costly, both socially and economically, if we were to create a large group of people (security, bodyguards) whose sole job was to actively protect us against all dangerous people, rather than to give people themselves that capability?

BTW, just for the record, I am Canadian.

The Man said...

Great post. My sentiments exactly, and I never understood why women who have actually been threatened don't have this attitude. I tell them as much at every chance. Keep up the good work.

Mulliga said...

I'd personally advocate making everyone pass a verbal test similar to what people wanting a driver's license had to go through in much of Europe (don't know what they have to do now) before granting a CCW license.

Only problem is, if you have to take a test, pay a fee, and have a license, it's not very free, is it?

I mean, I am currently being taught by a criminal law professor and even she doesn't know what is and what isn't legal in Florida, simply because she doesn't own a gun.

So if someone wants to get a gun because their ex-husband has been making threats to them and all they could get was a restraining order, they'd have to research all the deadly force laws, pass a test (which my law professor might fail, after all), and buy a license all to carry a gun?

Anonymous said...

Damn skippy! When I went to class this morning, I strapped on my 1911; effective immediately, my campus, or at least about a dozen square feet, centered on me, is no longer a defenseless victim zone. And no, I'm not in Utah.

(Posted anonymously for reasons that should be obvious.)

Unix-Jedi said...

Chris:

One crazy gunman + legally armed populace = lots of people shot by crazy gunman + lots of peoople shot by wildly firing civilians + one dead crazy gunman.

Since almost all the states in the US now issue concealed licenses in some manner of large numbers - surely this would happen quite frequently.

So can you point me to an example of this happening?

Unix-Jedi said...

(whoops! Andys, that is. I don't know where "Chris" came from...)

Elmo's aphasiatic twin said...

The latest news stories are blaming us armed U.S. citizens for the caper. Every crime involving a firearm up there is blamed on lax U.S. gun control laws.

Here's some AP copy: "Canadian laws prohibit the possession of unregistered handguns, and the rules for ownership of registered guns are stringent. Many politicians and police contend illegal guns flowing across the U.S.-Canada border are behind a recent spike in firearm violence."

If the U.S. would disappear, the world would be as safe, peaceful, womblike place using that logic.

AndyS said...

Dear Unix-Jedi:

Can you point at an example where an armed citizenry has intervened, to positive effect, in a mass-murder-in-progress?

I don't mean to answer a question with a question -- just to point out that it's tough to think of legitimate examples of either.

The point: this blog seems to view the event in Toronto as an excellent example of why the carrying concealed weapons is necessary and important protection. But events like this are terribly rare in reality, hardly justification to go about armed.

Les Jones said...

AndyS: it happened a few months ago in Tennessee during the killing spree at Shnuck's grocery store.

There was also the Tyler, Texas courthouse shooting and an incident in a mall. The armed citizen's name in that case was something like Dan McOwen (li'l help somebody?). He was wounded, but survived.

Tam said...

"Can you point at an example where an armed citizenry has intervened, to positive effect, in a mass-murder-in-progress?"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/12/104130

doubletrouble said...

Tam-
Got here via Mass Backwards...
You da babe, & you're on my must read daily.
Nice job, thanks.

Unix-Jedi said...

Can you point at an example where an armed citizenry has intervened, to positive effect, in a mass-murder-in-progress?

Dan McKown

Sandy Javelle - intervened, not allowed to carry, deceased. I can't even find the law school students - after 10 minutes of Googling - that's how buried that story is.

Joel Myrick.

Those are stories who don't fit the proper storyline. Unlike the Montreal shooting. People huddled in fetal positions, praying for deliverance from Some Higher Power (which should be one resulting from taxation)...

Additionally - most of the mass murders takes place in places where concealed carry isn't allowed. I saw a writeup recently about how many crimes/shootings were broken up by off-duty police officers - and how these police were considering disallowing carry off duty. Because they kept running into situations that amazingly enough - when uniformed officers were around, didn't happen. But when the criminals didn't know that was a cop over there.... And then the other responding units had problems picking out who was who. (IIRC, 2 officers had been shot by uniformed officers in the past year).

(That point is that those cops were running into the same situations that the rest of us might.)

But most of the mass murders - including this latest! Were in somewhere where only the police were allowed to be armed.

Pretty much by definition, my examples would be a fraction of yours - if you were right about the blazing-away propensity of someone with a concealed carry permit/license. But they're not.

But events like this are terribly rare in reality, hardly justification to go about armed.

"The plural of anecdote is not data". Which is very true.

However, in those above cases, someone with a gun - even those who had to run to a car to get one (think how much faster the response would have been without that - including one Vice Principal who violated state law by having his gun. (The local authorities for some reason have decided not to charge him.. probably fearing for their hides if they did).

I don't expect that any given day I'll need to use a weapon. Betcha nobody at the cafe in Montreal would have laughed at you, too.

Unix-Jedi said...

Gah.

Betcha nobody at the cafe in Montreal would have laughed at you, too.

Biggest edit I missed:
Replace that with:

Betcha nobody at the cafe in Montreal would have not agreed with you, and laughed off the possibility - yesterday.

Grrr. Small *@#&$*(@# edit box.

Unix-Jedi said...

One I can't find anywhere online anymore - it slightly predates the ubiquity of the Internet - so I'll have to repeat it from memory.

Salesdude is on a call, flirting with secretary at the front desk, before his meeting. Ex-husband/bf/jilted lover of a worker bursts in, fires a shot from the 12-gauge into the ceiling, and yells "I'm gonna kill all you sumbitches!" (Apparently they'd assisted the ex in leaving or something).

Salesdude clears his 1911, one shot to the sternum of guy, carrying 12 gauge, three pistols, and a slung rifle of some sort.

2 shots fired, one dead goblin. No mass murder - which it would have been, failing salesdude's not figuring "what are the odds?"

2nd anecdote (remembering they're not data):

Not long after the now-Nurse Fiancee and I started dating, she went to the mall. She didn't quite understand why I carried, but it didn't bother her.

2 men robbed a bank in town, and now flush with cash, headed straight to the mall, in the getaway car, to spend the loot before the cops put the word out. With a police car tailing them.

2 guys enter the mall, and are discussing where best to redistribute the wealth, Robin Hood style, when the cops hit the door behind them. The BG of Lesser Intelligence fires a shot at the police (from over 50 yards). Then they both come somewhat to their senses - and hoof it. Followed by $LargeNum of cops. BFoLI fires twice more at the cops. At some point, the brighter one of the two notices that the mall ahead is filling with cops. And they're under one of those open areas.. which is rapidly filling with cops peering at them over iron sights.
At which point apparently he threw down his gun, grabbed the BGiLI's gun, threw it down, threw down BGoLI, and went down himself.
All well, good, and not much harm done. Nobody hurt, after all.

Point of this? They'd pounded past a store the now-Nurse Fiancee was in.
She doesn't have her concealed permit yet. But she did want (and got) a Colt Commander for Christmas.

Achillea said...

To be fair to Ron B and his countrymen, the Canadian military has been kicking ass and taking names shoulder to shoulder with the US in Afghanistan. Our northern neighbor may have a higher percentage of pacifist lefties among its civilian population, but they're not all a bunch of unarmed wimps.

That said, pdb is right about the importance of mindset. All the guns in the world won't do you a bit of good without the will to fight.

Don't focus all your image of weapons on guns or handy pieces of your surroundings. The martial arts are, literally, the arts of war. Boxing, wrestling, karate, judo, aikido. Pick one (or more), find a good teacher/school, and start learning. Not only will it give you the mindset, it will give you a valuable skill. The law or maybe just pure chance might leave you with no gun or anything useful within reach at a crucial moment, but you'll still have your hands ... and your feet, elbows, and knees. With the right training, that's all you need to kill a man.

Anonymous said...

"The problem is, you guys always assume that the gun-toting citizens on the scene will have:

* superb judgment about what situations warrant resorting to the gun
* top-notch training and years of experience in the handling of violent situations
* excellent marksmanship"

None of these three would have been required at the time. You don't need "superb judgement" regarding when to pull a gun when there's a guy shooting random people around him. Neither do you need "top-notch training" or "years of experience in the handling of violent situations," as it is evidenced quite often that people with little to no experience with such situations defend themselves daily. "Excellent Marksmanship"? To hit a guy firing a carbine inside an enclosed area that shoots pistol rounds? What are you smoking?

To Ron B:
"The guy had an automatic rifle, for frag's sakes."

Incorrect. The guy had a semi-automatic carbine.

Next we'll be hearing about how there needs to be a ban on the fully-automatic armor-piercing airplane-destroying sniper rifles that are so prevalent. That shoot pistol bullets. The media's, and much of the population at large, willful ignorance of anything gun-related is apalling.

T.Stahl said...

"Would you trust the general public to operate motor vehicles if there were no speed limits? No way!"
Ever been to Germany?
Well, per capita we have less traffic deaths than the USA.

AndyS said...

Dear anonymous:

You don't need "superb judgement" regarding when to pull a gun when there's a guy shooting random people around him.

In the midst of sudden confusion, how do you know that what you're faced with is "a guy shooting random people"? In a split second, how do you determine that you're not faced with law enforcement action, a movie being shot, or a prank?

Again, even if you feel you have that ability yourself, how do you assure that all of the gun-toting citizens around you have that same ability? The price of bad judgement can be pretty steep.

Neither do you need "top-notch training" or "years of experience in the handling of violent situations," as it is evidenced quite often that people with little to no experience with such situations defend themselves daily.

Anecdotal. There are also many examples of legally armed citizens stupidly shooting each other in disputes over parking spots. Just watch "Cops"!

"Excellent Marksmanship"? To hit a guy firing a carbine inside an enclosed area that shoots pistol rounds? What are you smoking?

To identify the proper target in a public space filled with frightened victims, to hit the guy as he moves while running or hiding yourself, to avoid hitting any of the others (or any law enforcement personnel who might be on the scene with guns drawn). Not so simple as you suggest!

GaryN said...

AndyS,

Please be good enough to read the article at this link.

http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

Then I think you will understand...

GaryN said...

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

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 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."

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? What do you have then? 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

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 thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose 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, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who 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.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

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.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

Unix-Jedi said...

AndyS:
Anecdotal. There are also many examples of legally armed citizens stupidly shooting each other in disputes over parking spots. Just watch "Cops"!

Name one.

You asked me to name examples - and I did so. I pointed out why my examples should be in the minority, if you were right.

But you were being dishonest. You've lied about why you said what you said. Now that it turns out that yes, I've got a lot of examples, you're going to ignore me, and continue with your (now very disputed point). Despite your (demonstrated) utter lack of knowledge or expertise in the area you are declaring yourself an absolute expert.

You've, without any facts or examples to back them up, made up your mind, and you'll make up facts to "support" your case. When I called on you to back up your assertation the first time - in good faith - you stalled.

But now you've revealed your true colors with that comment. Yes, I watch COPS every so often. I've yet to see a single shooting of "legally armed citzens" by others. Or a dispute over a parking spot.

That's exactly what this latest massacre in Montreal shows - the absolute failure of your mindset.

At least be honest about that, even if you want to disparage and insult people who disagree with you.

Not so simple as you suggest!

I think sir, that you've now shown that you don't have the ability to correctly judge, or render a decision on that. Not that I think you'll suddenly get a huge dose of morality and admit that you're here under a false flag.

Masked Menace© said...

While not always "mass-murder" there is a blog set up specifically for articles about successful gun self defense.

BobG said...

My hat is off to you, lady; one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. I think you've summed up how most of us feel in a concise, uncomplicated manner.
I'd also like to give a hat tip to Unix-Jedi for the excellent rebuttal.

Anonymous said...

Andy,
I don't care if it's law enforcement, movie, or a prank. If I'm being shot at, I'm firing back.

AndyS said...

Dear Unix-Jedi:

I read through my post carefully and I most certainly did not "insult" or "disparage" anybody! I merely disagreed politely -- didn't characterize opposing views in any way.

But, in your reply, you've been kind enough to make my point for me.

Many people behave like you have behaved in this brief exchange. They are quick to anger, and resort to violence with little provocation. They lack the judgement to distinguish between a minor challenge and a serious threat. They respond by lashing out wildly, shooting at targets both real and imaginary.

As long as your weapon is just a keyboard, I'm fine with that. But it's exactly the behavior you've displayed that worries me, when it comes to the reliability of "legally armed citizens". Like you, they lack the judgement, experience, and skills necessary to correctly identify threats, evaluate their seriousness, and respond appropriately and effectively.

AndyS said...

Gary N:

Thanks for pointing me at the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs article.

In the context of the article, I'd still like to pose the question I've been trying to get somebody to address.

I would like to suggest that you don't get to be a sheepdog simply by declaring yourself one. In the real world of sheepdogs, while natural herding instinct certainly plays a part, a great deal of effort is required to produce a well-trained and effective dog.

It is also necessary to start with a dog that's made for herding in the first place. Allow either a Chihuahua or a Grey Wolf to become a sheepdog and disaster will ensue.

To carry the analogy into the world of humans...

Why should I believe that the typical "legally armed citizen" is a sheepdog to begin with? The idea of being a sheepdog seems to have appeal to many people who aren't equipped by nature for the job.

And even if he or she has those traits, how do we assure that the necessary training takes place? There's a lot more to it than marksmanship!

It still seems to me that you make assumptions about the judgment, experience, and ability of "legally armed citizens" that just can't be correct.

Unix-Jedi said...

Andys:

I really didn't expect you to behave better. Low expectations = less disappointment.

You said: I come not to troll, but to understand... so please be patient or tell me to go if you're not in the mood.

But that's exactly what you came to do. You came to lecture, and to invent "facts", to insult, and deride.

Couching it as a "question" to start with, is just blantantly dishonest. On a par with "I own a gun, and I believein the 2nd Amendment, but...."

I'd really be interested to hear you defend what I see as the core issue -- which is that the arguments made in this blog all presume a level of skill and experience that can't reasonably be expected of a "legally armed populace".

That's me, by the way. And Tam. And pdb. And a number of lurkers I know who are reading this.

So far, you've not yet insulted. But...

One crazy gunman + legally armed populace = lots of people shot by crazy gunman + lots of peoople shot by wildly firing civilians + one dead crazy gunman.

Now, you've dropped your "question" stance - but not obviously, yet. Now you're telling us that this is the way things are. We're dangerous. Yes, yes, blood in the streets, we've heard it a time or two before.

But I was still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I asked you to give an example - seeing as how 90+% of the country regularly issues/does not need permits for concealed carry, surely there's some example here to pick from.

Can you point at an example where an armed citizenry has intervened, to positive effect, in a mass-murder-in-progress?

I, and several others, did just that. Again, believing you were here in good faith, more the fools us. But hey, we, unlike dishonest people, tend to take people at their word.

I gave you several. Others chimed in with more. You ignored those, and apparently forgot you were here to "question" and "learn"...

In the midst of sudden confusion, how do you know that what you're faced with is "a guy shooting random people"? In a split second, how do you determine that you're not faced with law enforcement action, a movie being shot, or a prank?

You made your mind up long before you ever heard of this weblog.

Again, even if you feel you have that ability yourself, how do you assure that all of the gun-toting citizens around you have that same ability? The price of bad judgement can be pretty steep.

It's called Trusting Your Fellow Man. See, those of us who trust people - even ones who lie and deceive as you do to disarm victims and enable rapists, murderers, and robbers. Those who you sneer at for having a lack of sense trust you far more than you trust us.

Anecdotal. There are also many examples of legally armed citizens stupidly shooting each other in disputes over parking spots. Just watch "Cops"!

"Many examples"? But when I asked for for one you balked. So, where are all the others?

This is where you showed your true colors. You were here to spread lies and misinformation. It's a bad place to do that, really. We've dealt with a lot of bullshit through the years - from far better bullshitters than you, I might add.

To identify ... to hit the guy as he moves ... to avoid hitting any of the others ... law enforcement personnel ... Not so simple as you suggest!

I merely disagreed politely -- didn't characterize opposing views in any way.

Unless you're capable of understanding vernacular English, that is. Perhaps you really didn't mean to insult almost all of us here. The fact that you did is your problem, not ours.

They are quick to anger, and resort to violence with little provocation. They lack the judgement to distinguish between a minor challenge and a serious threat. They respond by lashing out wildly, shooting at targets both real and imaginary.

How? How have you been injured? Oh, someone said something to you. Yes, well, that Embarrassing Freedom Of Speech. After you get rid of those Dangerous Guns, you'll have to do more about that.

You lied, Andys. You came in, with deception and malice aforethought, and now, you're shocked, SHOCKED to find that people respond badly to that? Respond poorly to lies, mischaracterizations, ad-hominum attacks 'Just watch "Cops"!'

Like you, they lack the judgement, experience, and skills necessary to correctly identify threats, evaluate their seriousness, and respond appropriately and effectively.

Well, perhaps. But at least I'm honest.

Unix-Jedi said...

It still seems to me that you make assumptions about the judgment, experience, and ability of "legally armed citizens" that just can't be correct.

This reminds me.. I asked a very liberal friend of mine, upon the sunsetting of the "Assault Weapon" Ban...

"So, when I tell you the law was bullshit, when I tell you I hunt with a gun that looks just like an AK-47, and is legal under the law, and that is identical in operation to the "hunting rifles" you say are OK, I, who shoot 100 or so pistol rounds a week, and 40-200 monthly of rifle ammo... You tell me that you've never touched a gun, but you still Know Better"

She, of course, answered "Yes." I see lots of similiaties.

...judgment, experience, and ability of "legally armed citizens" that just can't be correct.

At least you're not asking anymore. I'd respect your stance and argument more if you hadn't been so blatantly (and pathetically) dishonest earlier.

ron b said...

I'd be interested in hearing an opinion from a former military member or police officer, who actually has been in a situation like this. IE: A stressful, confused environment where you are armed with a pistol, and your adversary has a superior weapon.

Apparently the early news report I read was inaccurate. I was wrong. The man had a semi-automatic carbine. The argument that it only shoots 9mm bullets is hilarious to me, though. Sure, if you were hit and you were lucky, you could still walk. You'd have to be a pretty tough mother to keep going towards the guy though.

It'd be nice to hear from someone with experience. Anybody like that out there? Would police officers really prefer that there be people taking things into their own hands? Or are too many other problems caused by such attitudes?

Cheers to achillea.

AndyS said...

Dear Unix-Jedi:

Thanks for helping me understand. You are every bit as paranoid and violence-prone as liberals expect.

I have to say, though... you sound less like a sheepdog and more like a Chihuahua, yapping at anything that moves!

Good luck and don't shoot the wrong guy.

Harry Eagar said...

I hope you're a teetotaler, Tamara. I quit hunting at age 17 when I had grown up enough to figure out that alcohol and firearms don't mix.

It's a rule to live by, as I prove by being alive. Quite a few of those who disagreed with me those many years ago are now dead of 'hunting accidents.'

Cubicle said...

Why should I believe that the typical "legally armed citizen" is a sheepdog to begin with?

because they have fangs, which makes them a wolf or a sheepdog.

Mugwug said...

"Canadians are soft, docile, toothless creatures indoctrinated from birth that violence never solves anything, and that the best thing to do when the Morlocks come for you is to relax"

Interesting, so that's a national trait is it? I'll remember that next time I'm tempted to speak up when someone paints all Americans with a single brush.

Excuse me now, I have to attend another tooth removal session hosted by the federal government.

Anonymous said...

wow its nice to see so many hero's packing heat.

seeing that (old numbers) the US has over 10 000 gun related deaths a year, it makes me wounder if mabee your the problem.

leave the heroism to the trained professional, not some cowboy. everyone has there childhood fantasy of being the one to save the day or kill the menise to society.

do i belive in self defence. yes. do i think canada has to strict gun control. absolutly. should people be allowed to cary? certenly not! (being that in a situation where force is the easy way out a person is more likly to use that sidearm. even if said situation could be defused without deadly force.)

isn't the point of deadly force supose to be a last resort? what makes you qualified to make such a decision. i know i'm not unless my life is in emidiate danger.

that being said. go ahead paint canadians as toothless creatures. bread on viloence never solves anything. don't forget that it was the canadians that always took the missions the americans could never finish. be it vimy ridge, the holding of the 49th in korea where the lines fell all around them or the current mission in afganistan where canadians (2000)are fighting in the south with less casualties (other then your cowboy pilot friendly fires) then the american (23 000 in afganistan) military.

Also i find that funny concidering when americans travel they dawn the canadian flag so as not to be known as americans. if all this red white and blue your shooting up my a$$ is so great quit wearing my colors.

now i'm not and american basher. i've been there met the people in the north and south and most are nice and friendly. but that been said you do have alot of cowboys and ignorent duma$$es too. more then i'd like to admit. I am going to travel again down to the US but as before i will feel less safe knowing that joe blow could be carying and how well has he been trained on that firearm.

LawDog said...

The problem is, you guys always assume that the gun-toting citizens on the scene will have:

* superb judgment about what situations warrant resorting to the gun
* top-notch training and years of experience in the handling of violent situations
* excellent marksmanship

And the problem that all of you gun-grabbers share is the belief that the gun-toting police officers on the scene will have:

* superb judgment about what situations warrant resorting to the gun
* top-notch training and years of experience in the handling of violent situations
* excellent marksmanship

Buddy, it just ain't so. And I've been a cop since 1993, so don't try to blow smoke up my skirt.

You want to know the difference between a legally-armed citizen and a peace officer? The citizen wants to be armed and actively seeks training for it.

For most police, carrying a gun is part of the uniform. It's another badge of office. Police -- for the most part -- dodge training.

My Law Enforcement Academy class shot a 40 hour -- five day -- class on firearms. Since graduation, the majority of my fellow cadets have fired less than 100 rounds every two years.

On the other paw, those friends of mine who are not cops, but have Concealed Handgun Licenses fire between 50 and 500 rounds of ammunition every month.

A lot of cops go to classes on judgement under stress because they are forced to. And since they didn't pay for it -- it ain't their money -- they have no investment in doing any better than "Seven-Oh and Go".

A citizen who pays good money out of his own pocket to attend a seminar or class has a reason -- the money he sweated for -- to do the best he can in the class. He wants his moneys worth.

Don't ever assume that wearing a badge grants someone magical gun powers, eldritch tactical skills and/or voodoo marksmanship.

LawDog

Anonymous said...

Ok,
I REALLY try to avoid posting on threads when one or more people are incredibly obtuse. However, with the liberal troll and a couple of Canadian Defenders, it's time for me to step into the ring.

First off, I do NOT don (and yes it is don NOT dawn, which happens in the morning) Canadian colours when I head overseas. I am an American, an old line, hardcore Constitutional Republic American. Admittedly I have had many Europeans tell me that I am not what they consider a typical American due to my old world courtesies. While I do know Americans who don the maple leaf, they are all liberal sheep, enough said.

I am glad that lawdog spoke up, perhaps the liberals will listen to him as his LEO experience gives him credibility. I will say however, that I have noticed the same thing as a martial arts instructor and a firearms enthusiast.

As far as being trained and experienced to handle potentially violent situations, my money is on the highly trained martial artists. Police officers are given much more latitude in force deployment than those of us who do not and have not worn a badge. Therefore for our own self-preservation we need to train to a higher standard. That is one of the things that liberal gun-grabbers like to gloss over. I as a non-LEO MUST train harder on my own dime, and consequently attain an equivalent or higher degree of competency than an LEO. Remember, in a court of law if I am attacked b a knife wielding goblin and I drop him with a well-executed crushed trachea I will have a less than fun time explaining in court why I didn't just break the thugs arm. Whereas a cop in the same situation will get a wash for putting two hole in the goblins chest.

What I'm trying to say is that people who do not wear a badge are held to a higher standard in the courts.

As far as the trust issue goes, I trust people to do whatever they feel is in their best interest at that particular time. That being said, for a reasonably law-abiding person it is pretty much never in their best interest to start shooting indiscriminately(sp?) due to both criminal and civil penalties.

So, yes I am all for repeal of all gun laws, among other "prior restraint" laws as I do not believe that any "prior restraint" law has a place in a Constitutional Republic. Yes, I know that makes sheep nervous and I really don't care. There are plenty of places in this world where sheep can live happily under those types of laws. I just want one place they don't exist. According to the Constitution that place is here.

I wouls prefer to live and let live, if forced I am willing to live and let die. However, I am EMPHATICALLY UNWILLING to allow the forces of darkness to roll over myself or my loved ones unopposed. I will NOT go softly into the night and anyone who is not comfortable with my acquiring the requisite tools can feel free to p'og ma hoen.

-Gregg

Anonymous said...

I was born in Niagara Falls, have family still there, and my brother married a teacher from Toronto. I know the Canadians. Their soldiers are good. Many citizens are a**holes. Quebec? If you don't like it, move back to France, where all the jackasses live. Remember, the US saved your asses TWICE against Germany, and you jerkoffs still wouldn't let Reagan overfly your pitiful country to bomb Libya. P*ssies. Still pissed that we invaded you in 1812 or whenever, trying to help you get free of a faggy king/queen setup that you still worship? Idiots. The only reason you don't speak Russian today is that WE watched the North Pole and paid most of it. If Russia, or a few angry Eskimos invaded from the north, you'd lay down and cry for Mommy. Okay, the US has problems. But if everyone carried, mass murders wouldn't happen. That jackass would have been shot through the head within ten seconds if any of MY shooting buddies were near him. You ban all guns? Well, look what you got. Did it keep him from getting a gun? NOOOOO. Did it keep many people from being able to shoot him the first minute?? YESSSSSS. You lose, jerks. Stop being so proud of your country. Financially, we can crush you. Take your fingers out of your butts and start pulling triggers with them. Even millions of GIRLS in the USA can fight and shoot better than your cops can. The song "American Woman" had a line in it toward the end "American Shit". Sung really softly. Real tough rock group. You have more words for "surrender" than Eskimos have for "snow"? Now why doesn't that surprise me?? The Nazis blew through France in a few weeks. And in WW one, we saved your butts. You'd still be in the trenches picking your noses trying to get that piece of shit "cho-cho" or however you spell that junkie machine gun you had to work right.

Akatsukami said...

"do i think canada has to strict gun control. absolutly. should people be allowed to cary? certenly not!"

So, when is Canada going to get strict gun control, instead of allowing sociopathic punks like Gill to get their grubby paws on firearms?

Porta's Cat said...

Had to think about this one for a while and come back to it. Now it is time to toss in my 2 cents. Or my tooney, I guess.

Texan, here, and lifelong if it means anything one way or the other.
I am also constantly, probably chronically, armed. This decision based upon a few factors, but having had to deal with several "bad situations" in my life, it seems prudent. I would like to "not need to" or feel I don't ened to, but the world does not exist as such, currently.

Cannucks, are not by nature, cowards. Neither are the French, even though they get that bad rap. Ask the Germans about the French in WWI. Or the French resistance in WWII. The French showed no lack of courage in Indochina, and just made a lot of stupid tactical and political errors in waging that little war. The US made its own later on, and could not be accused of cowardice on the individual, unit, or military level. The cowardice, or maybe lack of true resolve, was found "up top".

Anyhow, Canadians are just people. Like Americans and French and even (gasp) Afghanis and Saudis who are now AQ. Politics and religeon and the like may make people good or bad relative to your own position, but we can't call them cowards because they are "the bad guys".

Anyhow, someone posted the famous "Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs" by Grossman. I think Grossman gives credit to an old Master Sgt. for the idea, but Grossman made it famous. Grossman also notes in "On Killing" that the greatest majority of people "we" my currently consider "Sheepdogs" will NOT kill deliberately when pressed to by duty. They are not cowards because of that. In fact, many arre quite brave in the face of fire. They will just not "pull the trigger" in combat or when faced with mortal danger, even to mortal danger to themselves. "Sheepdogs" with training, motivation, authority, and reason to kill will not always do so.

So....the sheepdog may not always gaurd the sheep effectively. Not due to cowardice, but due to humanity and its inherent "non-desire" to harm another.

And, Grossman also noted, it was often the "sheep" or what would have been perceived as a "sheep" who could suddenly rise up (or fall down) and become the sheepdog or the wolf. There is no single identifying factor of any type that can be easily factored in with certainty until the moment of truth comes and passes. We are all, or were all, at some time and moment sheep. And many of the sheepdogs and the wolves may find it all a state of "wannabe" at some crisis juncture. As well, we may see the "sheep" rise up and stampede in the direction of danger and eliminate it.

Anyhow,(ramble, ramble) it is easy to judge from the outside what we (many of us who have NEVER been presented with real danger or threat, but live in the HOPE we would act well in it face) think one group or an individual should have done, or what we would have done, etc. And certainly we can judge and analyze, and hopefully learn, from such events. But I have trouble with the expectation that people with ZERO training in anything should be expected to act, or think, even minutely like a "trained" person will in the same circumstances.

Having been pressed into "acting on training" on a few occasions, I can tell you these two certainties about myself:

1. training takes over and you do things, good and proper and appropriate things, without concious thought.

2. You are (or I was) still scared a bit shitless.

I didn't have time to be a coward or not. The time wasn't presented to allow that. It was always that the event just occured, and I "reacted" to it. I am sure as much a chance of cowardice or heroics exists in me as in any other person, given time to think and contemplate. The same with the Canadians and the French and the Eskimo.

Canadian college students are as dull, vapid, and as unable (or as insightful, brave, and idealistic) as US college students are. If you don't think so, just hang around a college campus for a while.

And before you judge harshly anything that doesn't smack of cold and deliberate cowardice under fire, hope that after that judgement you don't find yourself with piss running down your leg, tunnel vision, sweaty palmed, and with a pistol in your hand and a target to acquire.

Al said...

I agree with you on all you said...I especially liked the subtle chastisement, (which is probably a French word since it reeks of gentle scolding...something the Froggies might be good at, along with surrender.), posted by the poor poofy soul who winters in Paris. If such a person exists and does, in fact, winter in France they should already be very familiar with various very well used mechanisms of surrender. After all, they make it a naional avocation and have for centuries. This wimpy limp attitude didn't happen overnight. Keep up the inspiration. If the Ogres ever dance where I am I sincerely hope you and others like us are in the area. We will show to them a "new" tune to dance to.

Ben said...

As someone here said, "It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it." I've been in both positions, and "having it" is much better. So it's a 1911 AND I PRACTICE!

Draven said...

Many civilian gun owners interested in self-defense spend more time practicing their marksmanship than many police officers.

I myself have gotten some looks from LAPD officers and Sheriffs when the topic of ammunition consumption comes up. I've gotten 'the bug-eyed look' from an LAPD officer when i had several boxes of .357 in a bag, especially when i said they'd only last a month, and that I fully expected my wife to shoot at least two of the boxes.

Kevin Starrett said...

Way back in this thread, someone (Ryan Waxx?) asked "In what state CAN you carry a gun at a school? " Oregon.

George said...

Well ... didn't Tam's post attract all sorts of attention! As often happens, there was the usual mix of reason, loathing, xenophobia amd hyperbole.

Perhaps I can clear some things up. The Montreal (not Toronto) shooter killed himself. He was shot once by a police round. All the weapons he carried were legally obtained ... under current Canadian law. I don't expect Americans to understand why we Canadians have the ridiculous gun laws we have. It makes no sense to those of us in the RFC.

The current system was set up after the 1989 murder of 14 women at a Montreal college and was also supposed to prevent this very type of tragedy. Those of us in the RFC said it wouldn't work ... and with a heavy heart, we have been proven right.

High schools ends at Grade 11 for Quebec teenagers. Dawson College (the location of the shootings) is an English language university preparation college. Don't ask ... it just is part of the educational system in Quebec. Many of the student are 16 and 17 years old ... the age of many of the Colunbine students. They did what 16 year olds do when confronted by something that's life threatening and unknown. The Canadians were no different from their American cousins.

When I had a loaded weapon pointed at me (a military-grade assault rifle), I had the training and mindset to respond. These kids didn't.

Would it have been different if some of the students, professors, staff or passers-by were armed? I think so ... but I don't know. I agree whole-heartedly with Tam's essential position that she wouldn't go like that. I don't plan to, either.

I know it's fun to imagine how many words the Inuit have for "snow". In fact, they have no more names that we English have for the colour blue, or red or green or any others.

Finally, I don't see all Americans as being the archtypical "Ugly American". Similarly, I reject the notion that all Canadians are impotent pussies.

And ... some of us in our passion may not spell perfectly. So what? Everyone who read that piece understood with perfect clarity.

And ... you don't have to go to Alberta. Come on down to the north end of Hamilton. We can dance.

Thanks for your thoughts, Tam. When I read blogs, I always go to yours first.

Regards,
George

Byron Quick said...

AndyS,

My concealed weapon saved me from receiving grave bodily injury if not from death. My 'superb judgement' consisted of deciding the guy swing the hickory club at my skull did not have my best interests at heart. Marksmanship was not required for once I was off of his line of attack, he realized I was drawing a mean, old, nasty, handgun. At that point, he released said hickory club and ceased his assault. Therefore, using aforementioned 'superb judgement,' I ceased my defense. He's still out there, still has his hickory sledge hammer handle and would probably like to interact with you. Have fun.

I know the history of the War of 1812 as well as WWI and WWII. I know what the Canadians were. I also know what the British were. And, as a whole, no longer seem to be. And, no, my friends, I will not accept your invitations to go to a bar anywhere and insult anyone. Always the chance of meeting the rare exception and I must validate my 'superb judgement.' :-)
Best,

Byron Quick