Virginia Tech shooting survivor Colin Goddard has emerged as the media’s go-to gun tragedy guy. In other words, he’s become a professional victim. In this case, the telegenic Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spokesman warns about troubled teens’ “dangerously easy access to guns.” Listen carefully: “when you put an object like this in their hands, then you have national tragedies like this.” Who “put” the gun in the Chardon shooter’s hand? American gun owners are not culpable in this or other violent crimes. As always, misdirection leads to lies; Goddard claims the Arizona campus carry bill would “force” students to bring guns on campus. Huh? It’s gun control for dummies. “The answer to gun violence is not more guns,” Goddard states. I wonder if Colin ever wishes he’d had a gun on him on that fateful day at VT . . .

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

39 COMMENTS

  1. Goddard should change the title of his screed to “Living Off 32.” In literature and marksmanship, accuracy is everything.

  2. Virginia Tech alumni here. Back off of the personal attacks please. It completely nullifies your argument.
    He’s got every right to say what he does whether or not we agree with it. If you disagree with him, disprove his facts without calling the guy a ghoul.
    I went to classes in that building almost every day and only graduated a few years before this incident. I knew a few of the victims. I’m not happy when someone exploits a tragedy to voice their opinions, but I give someone alot more room if they were there. Hes not exploiting. He was there. Call him misguided. Say his emotions have taken him down the wrong path. Don’t call him a ghoul.

    • No way, Josh. He does not get a pass “because he was there”. In fact his actions are even more reprehensible “because he was there”. He cowered in a corner and prayed for his life. Now he is a paid shill for the gun-grabbers who would put everyone in a position to have to cower and pray. He has made a career out of that one day. He is a despicable and disgusting individual and frankly your protection of him is a little too.

      • Its not about getting a pass. Its about not calling folks names because they disagree with you. Especially when they took a bullet. Just out argue them with reason. Name calling just makes us all look bad. If Pro-2A is going to win the public debate, we need to understand how we look to people in the mainstream.
        You attack him personally, you take the bait…

          • Robert, that’s too little too late. Josh made good points, which thankfully you briefly acceded to, but here’s the real problem.

            You preach this nonsense:

            “Who “put” the gun in the Chardon shooter’s hand? American gun owners are not culpable in this or other violent crimes. As always, misdirection leads to lies.”

            You’re the one who uses misdirection. Colin is a pretty straight shooter. Gun owners who, like you, fight for looser gun rights, ARE to blame. The gun came too easily from the kid’s grandfather because in Ohio it’s perfectly normal and acceptable AND LEGAL to leave a gun lying around.

            You support this under some misguided idea of gun rights, therefore you are to blame.

            • It was a .22. .22’s didn’t fall under the AWB in the 90s.

              A .22 rifle much less.

              The day the US places more regulations on .22 rifles is the day I buy an island and leave

        • It’s not because he “disagrees”, it’s about his blatant lies and lack of a factual argument.

    • I’m not happy when someone exploits a tragedy to voice their opinions, but I give someone alot more room if they were there. Hes not exploiting.
      So…what is he doing?
      Same as Sarah Brady.
      Professional victim who is now an “expert” on gun control.
      Gee…I had a friend who was offed due to a gang initiation, does that make me an “expert” as well?
      How about some rounds whizzing over my head due to a stupid hunter?
      Am I now the go to guy for Hunter Safety Gun Control?

    • I have to agree with Pete and Tom. He’s got these people using him as some kind of morally superior pseudo martyr for their cause. A lot of people died there and this guy and the brady bunch want to hang their shingle on it.

  3. The only way to stop gun violence is with a gun. The best place to commit gun violence is within a “Gun Free Zone”. Those who go to gun free zones to commit violence are only stopped by good people with guns.

    Funny how liberals can never grasp the concept…even after they’ve been shot.

  4. “The answer to gun violence is not more guns,”

    Ummm…. actually… it IS the answer. The only way to defeat a bad guy with a gun… is a good guy with a gun. Better yet… a LOT of good guys with guns.

  5. I know Goddard likes to say “Even if you had a gun, you’d probably freeze up and be too afraid to do anything.” Has anyone ever asked him “What if Liviu Librescu had a gun that day?”

    • Goddard says that because he’s a coward. He was ROTC and instead of DOING something in a bad situation and trying to help others, he cowered and did nothing. Now he has to demonize guns because he lacks the guts to admit that he’s spineless.

  6. I actually understand this kid’s mental position.

    I do not by any stretch agree with his statements. That said, arming this guy wouldn’t accomplish anything except his certain death, and here is why:the problem illustrated here is mindset not of political perspective.

    College students today are expected to delegate the responsibility for their security to others. Self-reliance is discouraged in campus academia as “selfish” and “irresponsible” behavior , and the logical conclusion that one should be prepared to face a lethal assault potentially anywhere is considered “paranoia” among the academic types. Today its accepted that violence can happen in college environments, but I rather seriously doubt Colin Goddard woke up that morning with the remotest idea that he could be fighting for his life.

    Until that dark day on campus, he lived in a utopia of academia where people were fundamentally good and did good things for others. Being shot multiple times by a fellow student shattered this ideal, leaving him with two concepts to embrace:either own up to the fact that his entire worldview to that day was fatally flawed, or cling to his belief while assigning blame elsewhere.Goddard’s campaign of blaming the gun and crusading for gun control may strike us as an act of intentional malice, but I see it as a depressing consequence of a man who is traumatized by ugly and evil reality who copes by living a fantasy through activism.

    • I would feel some sympathy for him if he wasn’t making himself into some kind of gun-control expert, spokesman, and sage. I saw one of his interviews and it went something like… “I was there. I don’t think an armed student or teacher would have helped. It might have made things worse.” (I’m paraphrasing.) It could have been worse?! 32 dead and it could have been WORSE? Not only was he a coward, he advocates further cowardice and pacifism. Sorry if I’m wound up on this one. I live in VA, have college-aged kids in VA universities, and this one hit close to home. I have no respect, sympathy, empathy, or patience for Goddard whatsoever. He is nothing more than an opportunistic worm in my opinion.

    • I actually understand this kid’s mental position.

      I actually understand this kid’s wallet.

      • Its not about money or fame with this guy. Mr. Goddard got an up close and painful look at the evil human beings are capable of, and its a side of human behavior most people in America are very blessed to never see. The Liberal perspective thrives on the premise that human beings are fundamentally good people who make bad deviations from moral choices based on “outside factors”, such as acess to guns, cars, alcohol, and so on. This system of belief works when someone lives without ever seeing the honest nature of human brutality, but someone like Goddard who has “seen the elephant” has no choice but to either confront the falsehood of that attitude , or force the world to conform to the lie in their heads. We see the choice he has made in the aftermath of the attack, and I cannot help but pity him as I would anyone who chooses a comfortable lie over facing a harsh truth. It just so happens that instead of a drug dealer or psychiatrist benefiting, the Brady Campaign is the benefactor here.

          • Ralph, How much more do you think the NRA would pay him if he’d speak for them?

            A lot more, I’d bet.

            That means he’s not in it for the money and you know that but since his argument is pretty reasonable you find attacking his motives the best way to go. That’s shabby lawyer behavior.

            • Do you know him personally? Do you two exchange emails?

              How could you possibly know his motivations?

            • His argument is reasonable? What are you smoking Mikey? This is the same tired old argument the anti – America crowd has been pushing for decades.

  8. Wasn’t Goddard a member of the ROTC? If I remember my Army training (and it was 40 years ago) if you were caught in an ambush, you first tried to retreat from the attack. If not possible, you defended your position until you could retreat, and finally, if you could not retreat or defend, you attacked. I know that’s not quite how it goes, but for the life of me, I don’t remember my drill instructor telling me to lay down and wait for the bad guys to walk up and shoot me!
    So, for those that are defending Colin, I feel that the reason he is selling his soul to the Brady Bunch, is the fact that he’s ashamed of his actions during the shooting. Besides if he took the side that says to fight back, he would be admitting to himself that he was a coward!

  9. Maybe “ghoul” isn’t the right label for Goddard….one who thrives on the dead would correctly be called a “scavenger”…..

  10. Name calling just makes us all look bad.

    Nonsense. When I smell a pile of horsesh!t, I’m not going to call it roses.

    • Not to mention the fact that name calling is par for the grabber course and considered part of the “civil discourse” from the left on firearms. Invective against gun owners is normal vocabulary to most grabbers I have heard/read more than a sentence from. Racist, redneck, paranoid, psycho, etc ad nauseam. After watching so many officials say straight to victims faces that it is better for them to be in the state they are in than to have defended themselves, I cannot force my dialogue to be any more civil than the emotionless criminal enabling grabbers.

      • Jake, some folks on both sides do name-calling. Ralph’s justification seems to be that when you guys do it you’re right. It’s right that Colin is a ghoul and the other names he’s been called on this thread. But when a gun control guy uses redneck or paranoid, he’s wrong.

        • Nix the “some” for your side and you’d be right. I have not had, witnessed, or heard anecdotal evidence of a single discussion wherein a leftie did not use extremely disrespectful terms towards any pro-rights participants in the conversation. That’s why I said it’s seen as normal, as though we’re supposed to just accept the terminology as the words that apply to us in the dictionary even though the reality is far from it. I recognize all name calling and invective as uncivil, lefties only recognize such when it is directed at them, even if that only occurs because of prior overwhelming insults from the leftie.

  11. I remember an interview where he said that even if he had had a gun he wouldn’t have had the nerve to use it. Even though be could have saved lives with it.

    The guy is a coward and pathetic. I don’t really care what anyone else thinks.

  12. Why don’t liberals and politicians read history books? The news? I don’t get it. In every single event that has ever played out in history where there was a war there first was words. There were nasty words and threats. Then there were more words. Then there was war. Then there was a whole lot of dying. Then there was a tiring of dying. Then there were words. When the words settled on both parties there was no war. Apply this same premise to people and disagreements on a small scale and a lot of the time when it makes history (the news) the same happens. People say there was no reason. There was no way he or she could have done that. But those that were close (now probably dead) heard words. Then there was death. Now there are words again.

    Why do some seek to disarm those that have the right to fight back once words have failed?

    Last I checked we weren’t Vulcans.

  13. Something interesting I found.

    VI. GUNS AND HOMICIDE

    Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%.

    Gun control laws are stiffer in Canada, and many claim this accounts for the murder rate being lower in Canada than in the United States. 65% of US homicides were committed with firearms, versus 32% in Canada. However, a large American study indicated that liberalized laws for carrying concealed weapons reduced murder rates in the US by 8.5%. US homicide rates in the year 1900 were an estimated 1 per 100,000 — at a time when anyone of any age could buy a gun. Statistics-gathering may have been less thorough at that time — and few people had the money or interest to buy guns. But American gun supply (including handguns) doubled from the 1973-1992 period, during which homicide rates remained unchanged (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4-Aug-2000, p.A10).

    Politicians in Massachusetts have cited the State’s tough gun control laws as the reason for its low murder rates. However, the adjacent states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have some of the least stringent gun control laws in the US, yet the first two have lower murder rates than Massachusetts and the murder rates in Vermont are comparable to those in Massachusetts. Murder rates in Boston increased 50% in 2004 over the previous year, while murder rates in Los Angeles, Miami, Washington and many other major cites saw murder rates decline.

  14. Goddard is a world class weenie. I read an interview of him a few months ago. He declared that he did not even know what was going on in that classroom until he had been shot multiple times. It’s not wonder he thinks guns are not the answer. He projects his failure onto others. I really pity him his ignorance.

  15. His comment that we have the most guns and that we also have more gun violence than anywhere else is totally false and that can be verified. Look at these 2 websites, side by side:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
    Not sure if the homicide rate includes suicides or not. So let’s also look at the suicide rate in the good old USA.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
    Generally speaking about 50% of the deaths by firearms in the USA are suicides from what I have seen in the past. So, if we cut the intentional homicide rate in half due to that where does that leave us? I would say that the intentional homicide rate in the USA is exceedingly low for the amount of guns in circulation. Which totally destroys the argument that more guns cause more gun deaths. Would be interested in a rebuttal, challenge or a clarification of the above facts.

Comments are closed.