“I can’t believe that if that classroom in Oregon had had concealed weapons holders in there that it would have necessarily saved anyone.” That’s UT music professor Martha Hilley speaking at a forum of Texas educators opposing the imminent arrival of campus carry. She’s not lying. If Professor Hilley believed an armed defender could have limited the slaughter at Umpqua Community College, her opposition to campus carry would make no sense whatsoever. Equipped as they are with actual common sense . . .
millions of Americans can imagine the advantages of armed self-defense in the face of summary execution. They know that a gun – not gun control – was the order of the day when Chris Mercer opened fire. Which is why politico.com writer and fellow UT professor Matt Valentine penned The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun.
It’s an intuitive and appealing idea—that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. We can imagine it. We see it in movies. At least 80 million Americans have gone into the gun store, laid money on the counter, and purchased that fantasy. And yet it rarely plays out as envisioned. Is it because there aren’t enough guns? Is it because the guns aren’t allowed where they are needed? Or is there something else wrong with our aspirations to heroism?
What’s wrong with aspiring to heroism? There is but one alternative: passively accepting victimhood. When Fox News asked Ben Carson how we would’ve responded to Harper-Mercer’s attack, Carson said, “Not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me. I would say, ‘Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me but he can’t get us all.’”
The Campaign to Stop Gun Violence had this to say about that:
In the wake of recent mass shootings, pro-gun activists and legislators are increasingly blaming victims for their own murders. This rhetoric is cowardly and beyond the pale. It is also hypocritical, as pro-gun advocates like Dr. Carson are the first to lecture others about focusing on the actions of criminals when it comes to gun violence.
The comment purposefully mischaracterizes the very essence of the pro-gun position: the person who pulls the trigger is responsible for the result. Not the gun or “easy access to guns.” It also ignores both anecdotal and statistical evidence that Americans use firearms for self-defense and to prevent mass murder. To point this out isn’t victim-blaming or cowardly. It’s inspirational.
The CSGV doesn’t care about the facts, really. They’re too busy condemning Carson for the ultimate sin in a world where political correctness is all: perceived insensitivity. And doing their best to “inspire” Americans to become armed self-defense deniers.
In this they are not alone. rawstory.org‘s article Combat veterans shoot down NRA ‘fantasy world’ of ‘good guys with guns’ treads the same path. Ditto thenation.com‘s Combat Vets Destroy the NRA’s Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy. Notice the insertion of the NRA into the “argument” that “a good guy with a gun” can’t take out a “bad guy with a gun” (despite the fact they do).
But wait! There’s more! Post-Umpqua gun control media mavens have all trained their big guns on the NRA – almost as if it was a coordinated attack. Here’s a sampling of the unprecedented assault on the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.
Salon: People Die Because of this Man
Mother Jones: The NRA Is Losing Its Grip on Power
thinkprogress.org: 5 Indefensible Tweets From The NRA Since The Oregon Gun Massacre
nytimes.com: Who the N.R.A. Really Speaks For
deadline.com: How NRA Second Amendment Paranoia, Money, Cowed Pols Make Next Massacre Inevitable
eurweb.com: Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s Explosive Expose on How the NRA Terrorizes Congress
huffingtonpost.com: Harry Reid: Republicans Are ‘Acting As Puppets For The NRA’
marketwatch,com: The NRA’s profit soars as deaths from gun massacres mount
washingtonpost.com: Get the NRA to license bullet sales, and you’ll reduce gun violence
newyorker.com: Republicans and Gun Control: A Sad Mantra
And dozens more. Not to mention presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton’s recent pronouncement proclaiming that the NRA as the same as “the Iranians and Communists.” And the President’s thinly-veiled NRA slam during his statement immediately after the Umpqua shooting.
I reckon the Umpqua killing set the civilian disarmament industrial complex into high dudgeon because they can’t get anything done politically. Not now, with Republicans controlling both the Senate and the House. After the failure of the post-Newtown Manchin-Toomey universal background check bill. With Americans supporting gun rights like never before.
I fully expect the antis’ saber-rattling rhetoric to die-down in the weeks ahead. That said, we have a lame duck President who might see executive action on gun control as a way to change the conversation from his many foreign policy “successes.” As always, keep your powder dry.
“I can’t believe that if that classroom in Oregon had had concealed weapons holders in there that it would have necessarily saved anyone.”
Yeah, but I believe that the sonofabitch who shot those defenseless people was able to do so because he had no opposition.
And the same snake would still be killing people except for a couple of “good guys with guns” who showed up and ended that pussy’s little reign of terror.
And I do believe that if little twits (sic) like Martha Hilley are “educating” students, it’s no wonder they all have six figures of debt and no jobs.
“Yeah, but I believe that the sonofabitch who shot those defenseless people was able to do so because he had no opposition.”
What did the shooter do when he saw cops (armed intervention) coming at him? Offed himself.
Sooooo….good guys with guns stopped bad guy with guns. Right?
In other news the sky is blue. Dig in your heels people, we are in for a rough few months. This came in opportune time for Hillary to distract from her hearing on Benghazi and she is going to ride it more than Monica did her husband.
Take the low end of DGU estimates from the wiki page of 67000, does this not yield approximately one successful good guy or gal with a gun very 8 minutes? Day in day out. That’s the stat we should be pushing.
Even conservative estimates from Gun grabbers accept at least 100,000 DGUs. I agree this should be more available than the stats floating around now that comprise mostly suicide.
I don’t care if we have zero evidence of a DGU. The argument that one shooter can not stop another shooter is flawed right there.
Hah! If an armed person cannot stop an armed person, how can an armed person stop an armed person?
Confused? You should be because that is the exact argument that gun-grabbers claim. Now, here is their silly argument with a little more clarity:
An armed person (good guy) cannot stop an armed person (bad guy) … except when an armed person (bad guy) can stop an armed person (good guy). Because guns.
Of course their rationale is even better. The reason they claim that the bad guy can overtake the good guy is because the bad guy has the element of surprise. Of course then you have to ask why the element of surprise works for the bad guy, but does not work for the good guy who suddenly draws and surprises the bad guy. And again, the answer is, “because guns”.
This is yet another example of the hysteria of gun-grabbers. They are quite literally not right in the head.
If a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with gun then why do police have guns?
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I’ll go even farther. The notion that bad people can’t be actively stopped by ordinary people (regardless of the tools in question) goes beyond nonsense to bestow honor, glory, and power upon bullies, thieves, and murderers.
We should just submit. They’re better than us. There’s nothing we can do. Our only hope is to put our faith into something else that is also bigger and better than us: the state.
We’re individually insignificant, worth nothing in ourselves; that’s why we have a duty to retreat. Whatever criminals and the state decide to inflict on us or take from us, we should be glad they’ve left us with anything at all.
And that lowest number is from the Obama admin itself.
Anti’s just refuse to accept the facts, make up their own lies, and repeat it hoping it’ll stick.
Good people on airplanes and trains no longer tolerate shenanigans. If someone is trying to ignite their underwear or shoe bomb on a flight or a guy walks out of the train car’s bathroom with a rifle and starts pointing it at people, passengers pounce on the would-be terrorist/spree killer … and we all hail them as heroes. But stand in front of a camera and talk about the exact same tactics in the context of a school or college spree killer, and suddenly we are blaming the victims.
How can the exact same action/discussion make us both “heroes” and “victim blamers”?
Yeah thats my gut reaction. Taking self responsibility is not victim blaming? So who is supposed to take care of the situation? These people just want someone else to do all the dirty work and they will quite literally die rather than be responsible.
I think these people have forgotten Flight 93.
Propagandists gonna propaganda?
These are not journalists writing for independent news agencies, these are propagandists writing for the state sponsored media.
The verb is “propagandize”!
That’s what they do. Just like alligators gonna allegate. It’s the way of the world.
I don’t know about you, but I would have liked Chris Mintz’s chances against Chris Mercer had he been able to carry and would have been carrying that day.
Wouldn’t it be great if he said that himself? In a Ben Carson ad?
Also, it’s not just Ben Carson’s opinion that fighting back is the right thing to do. It’s the FBI’s own doctrine. Not only that, it’s the FBI during the current administration (2013).
This video has been on TTAG before, by the way. The “fight” portion is at about 3:45 or so.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cirg/active-shooter-and-mass-casualty-incidents/run-hide-fight-video
But no, fighting is useless. /sarc
Sounds like Mr. Carson struck a nerve. Regardless, it is the same old same old. Gun-grabbers have nothing so all they can do is attempt to demonize their opposition … in the desperate hope that the masses turn against their opposition.
Here is how gun-grabbers hope to inspire the masses:
(faceless person in the masses thinks) … “Mr. X has a solid point. But he is an insensitive bastard who blames victims, VICTIMS I tell you! That makes Mr. X a monster and I cannot support someone who is an insensitive bastard monster, even if they have a valid point. Therefore, I reject their valid point because I cannot in good conscience have an accord with a monster.”
“Good guys with guns are a myth!” -Gun control advocates
These are the very same people who expect police to show up, guns blazing, whenever there is a threat of violence.
These are also the same people who think that police use of force is out of control.
You do the hypocritical math on this one. I’ll continue to concealed carry where I am lawfully able to, and encourage others to do the same, regardless of their ideology.
The “ammo control” proposal is over-the-top ridiculous. So many ways around any perceived benefit. Clearly the author hasn’t heard of reloading.
that’s not really surprising, why would somebody who has apparently dedicated his life to doing something so utterly useless bother to learn about something useful? or… god forbid… bother to research the counterpoint to the proposal he makes
Except they might know and also know that the majority of gun owners don’t reload and rely on factory ammo thus would hurt them.
Well, “Gun Control Advocates” should be pinned, again, and again, and again, on this contrast, remarkably from Vox.
Here’s a law-abiding guy who understands the equalizer effect, incidentally a black guy, with a family (grandfather) history or arming themselves in defense against racial violence, yes, the KKK:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/6/9449709/gun-owner-keeping
And here’s this guy conflating *piles and piles of guns* in the US, with *piles of guns in the hands of the good guys*, which 1) rarely hurt anyone, and 2) sometimes *harm a bad guy, stopping (usually) him from doing bad things, with *piles of guns in the hands of bad guys, mostly illegally already, who 2) use them to do violence as simply a cost of doing business, while doing other illegal things.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-solution
They are relentless in declining to distinguish between criminal and non-criminal violence. Don’t let them get away with it. Never. Not an inch. (This is, BTW, why Dr. Carson is getting so piled on. The distinction between criminal and non-criminal violence must never be allowed. The notion that one can act for ones’ self, and may, indeed, be successful can never be allowed. Because either leads to … an inconvenient conclusion.)
Here’s three pair of slogans for the pro citizen-gun ownership folks:
** Not all gun “owners” are created equal. (Legal, peaceful citizen gun owners are overwhelmingly non-criminally violent, and *slightly* less overwhelmingly non-violent. That such people choose to be able to exercise violence, legally, in defense of themselves and others is an inconvenient distinction – we’d rather not have Hero-guy get stabbed because the bad guys are armed and he is not.)
** Not all gun uses – including the violent ones – are the same. (So, criminals doing criminal things, using violence as part of their business… one thing. Citizens minding their own business, holding firearms… another thing. Citizens, minding their own business until forced to choose between harming someone harming them, or simply taking it … yet another thing.)
** Sometimes, legal violence reduces illegal violence. (If you decline to make the distinction between some whack-job shooting up a school, and the cops who open fire and stop him – in this recent case ballistically persuading him to do us all a favor – shame on you. Also, how do you live being such a moral cripple?)
As the stabbing of the US Airman hero of France demonstrates anecdotally, the US may have a violence problem, of which violence using guns may be a symptom. Yet, sometimes the absence of “violence” using a gun may be part of this problem. So, I suppose it’s better that the airman was stabbed than had he been able to back off the swarm by, for example, showing a gun. If that’s their argument, make them make it. For my part, I’d be happier had the Airman had a gun, even if one or more of the swarming abusers got shot.
No, you don’t get to surround, harass and threaten a woman out on the street in America. It is not OK. In my ideal world this would never happen. In a world where it does, I’d prefer that she, and the Hero Airman both be armed if they want to be.
Please excuse my edit errors above. I’m a tad wound up.
The idea that we’re all better off defenseless appeals to two types of people: those who truly want to be defenseless because they rely on wishful thinking, and those who are privileged enough to have bodyguards.
The anit’s always argue “hypothetical s”.Their response is always “what if…” In their distorted world every one is a victim and it is not conceivable that someone could successfully thwart and armed attacker. And if you imply that such a thing happens every day, then you are a moron. We will never win an argument with these boobs so I say ignore them because the majority of Americans have figured out that they would rather be armed than not.
The only thing you have to ask an anti who is for civilian disarmament is: “do you have a gun free zone sign in front of your house”? The follow up is, “why not”?
The mainstream media fails to acknowledge the Gun Control advocates are at least, if not more extreme, than the NRA. At a minimum that want strict control of gun, but would prefer complete elimination of private gun ownership. Gun Controllers are willing to incrementally disarm Americans with their reasonable controls.
At one time, the New York Times would have known it’s “for whom,” not “for who.”
So as a member of the NRA, and the NRA is a membership organization, all these people are attacking me! If I were a wealthy person I’d have my legal team on their butts. Is there a way to mass auto-email these people in a program akin to the pre-assembled contact system GOA uses?
So far as Martha, she’s and idiot, yes, idiot. What does she suggest? What would Martha do? I guess she would sit down and take the bullet? Martha, the man who was confronting the assailant would have shot if he could have, but he was disarmed (gun-free area). Another man 200 yards away (armed) would have run to the area but progressive minded staff told him not to go.
Lawful citizens are of no danger Martha, in fact if you allow them they would do all they could to defend you!
Except for, you know, the people who were summarily executed. Any person who supports the forcible disarmament of people such as those victims is utterly morally depraved.
Very few people take effective action during mass murders and the ones that do mostly use passive methods. Examples are teachers who use their own bodies to shield their students and the veteran who tried to stop the Umpqua College shooter. Although courageous, such methods are almost always futile. It appears that nobody counterattacks with the goal of incapacitating the murderer. By incapacitate, I mean injure him so badly that he is physically unable to continue his attack. In the case of the Tucson shooter, those not yet injured swarmed him and held him down when he was interrupted by a magazine malfunction. Nobody, for example, kicked him in the head, choked him out or jammed a pen into his eye.
One of these days, an unarmed civilian is going to terminate a mass murder by just such aggressive methods. If the murderer survives at all, he will arrive in court after a long hospital stay perhaps permanently disabled. It will be interesting to see what the anti-gun crowd has to say about the incident. Possible responses are
(1) See. You don’t need a gun to defend yourself.
(2) This was an outrageous overreaction by the defender who should have used less violent methods.
(3) Let’s do our best to ignore the event.
I went looking for the Clakamas Mall link reference, and found this post, that cites it and 15 other instances of armed citizens stopping would-be mass murderers:
http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88
My “Meatballs” analogy always has been “it just doesn’t matter”.
We can have all the facts on our side, and I believe we do, and the other side still gets the majority of support. Media propaganda, snake oil sales pitches from Liberals are a couple example of why this may be. Another reason is , people can’t handle the truth.
I’ve said this many times. Liberals lie to the masses and win. Conservatives tell the hard truth and lose.
Meh. The Dumbs (Dems) know they will not get any gun-control through a Republican controlled congress. This is about prepping the field for the election next year.
Let’s trot out one of the antis’ favorite phrases: “If it saves just one life…”
If somebody in that Oregon classroom had been armed, then one more person might be alive today. Or two. Or three. Pick your number. Yes, it’s very unlikely that everyone would have been saved. But the outcome could have been significantly better. Of course this goes back to the antis’ basic denial that guns ever save lives. If somebody had capped the shooter before he killed anyone, then they would be whining about how some heartless redneck ammosexual murdered a poor guy who was having a minor psychotic episode and just needed a few pills and some love.
When hillary gives up her armed guards then she can speak. Until that time, I would say SHUT UP, but she has the first Amendment and I would defend her right to spew forth irrational and ignorant diatribe. She wants a mission then she should start with ending the double standards. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
I notice people who support the NRA and similar organizations are not shy and bashful letting their opinions be known with bumper stickers, signs in their yard etc. I have never once seen a bumper sticker or sign at a home that translates into – no guns in this house, we want to see them banned ,which would also translate to WE WILL BE YOUR VICTIMS JUST PLEASE SHOW MERCY. What could go wrong ? According to you a firearm is not needed in a home to defend your family. If you advertise that opinion in this manner I assure you that would be the biggest mistake you ever made.
Comments are closed.