The Steynshire Initiative

This just keeps getting better and better.  John Derbyshire clarifies that his earlier post, wherein he queried why it was that none of the victims at Virginia Tech had "count[ed] the shots and jump[ed]" the guy who was busy filling them with bullets, was actually a finely nuanced cultural critique:

This issue is: Have cultural changes moved us too far from the old American ideals of self-reliance and self-defense, towards a more "European" style of responding to crises by waiting passively for the authorities to do something? Seems to me this is a perfectly valid topic for discussion, as are corollary questions like: Supposing the older ideal was still dominant, would it have made a difference in this particular case? ... If these are not fair topics for discussion, I wish someone would tell me why.

Set aside for the moment the creepy quasi-Troother mewling about how he's "just asking questions" and appealing to some vague insinuation that his brave quest for enlightenment is being suppressed.  Set aside for the moment his bizarre assertion that Mark Steyn is "fearless" for raising the same "questions" (people who were slaughtered by a madman = wimps; guy posting pithy columns = fearless; got it).  Let's focus instead on the primary assertion (also echoed in Andrea Harris' comments): that what we witnessed in Virginia Tech was evidence of some sort of societal breakdown whereby an "older ideal" of self-defence and self-reliance has not just fallen out of favour, but actually been determinedly bred out of the populace. In short, "Europeanization", as Derbyshire would have it. (We can note in passing that it's not the mass murder itself which is taken as evidence of some anomaly by Derbyshire and Steyn, but the reaction to it.)

Fine.  This assertion assumes that at some point in the past, red-blooded American males would never have reacted in the "passive" manner seen at Virginia Tech.  A "cultural change" has occurred - so we should be able to identify a point prior to the change, where these ideals were manifest.  Let's call the metric for determining the matter the Steynshire Test, and examine some previous mass shooting events in American history to assess how real men would respond, and not the puerile, de-fanged variety which seems to haunt the land these days.  Excellent.  Here's a first stab at doing so.

Let's step back roughly a generation - July 18, 1984, James Huberty walks into a McDonald's restaurant in California and, over the course of 77 minutes slaughters 21 people.  Massacre only ends when the nanny state shows up in the form of a SWAT sniper.  Steynshire Test analysis: the culture of cowardice is already well entrenched - no reports of victims charging at the gunman, nor any evidence of plans being put in motion to either circle around him, scuttle across the ceiling and drop in on him from above or employ ninja stars.  Especially odd, considering some of the victims were presumably of relatively small stature, meaning they would have been more difficult for him to hit.

Okay, let's try a further step back in time, roughly another generation.  August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman ascends a clocktower at the University of Texas at Austin, armed with various guns, and proceeds to kill 16 people and wound 31 others.  Whitman had encountered numerous individuals on his way to the top of the clocktower, including one couple who saw him brandishing his weapons.  No one stopped him.  The killings do not end until the nanny state shows up in the form of three police officers who finally manage to kill Whitman.  Steynshire Test analysis: still no evidence of the American ideals of self-defence and/or self-reliance.  No accounts of individuals scaling the outside of the clocktower with knives clamped between their teeth in an effort to take down the gunman.  And in Texas, no less!  Things are looking grim.  To rub salt in the wound, because Whitman was a former Marine, his funeral featured his coffin draped in the American flag.  Perhaps evidence of communist infiltration - should be followed up on.

[UPDATE: Shouts to those in the comments - evidently you really should not mess with Texas: "By now word of what was happening had spread, and police began returning fire toward the Tower, trying to pick off Charlie as he rose up over the parapet to take aim.  Citizens went home and got their own guns, and hundreds of shots chipped away at the Tower in the next hour." And: "As I walked down the hall toward that office the sound of a large caliber rifle thundered from that open doorway followed by two men talking. After all the bizarre events of the last few minutes it didn’t seem strange to me when I peeked around the office doorway to see one professor shooting a deer rifle at the top of tower while the other fed him ammunition."]

Okay.  Maybe a still earlier generation had some brass ones.  Let's go back another twenty or so years.  The morning of September 6, 1949.  Howard Unruh prowls the streets of Camden, New Jersey, and kills twelve people with his gun - men, women and children among them.  Victims scramble out of the way, hiding behind houses, counters in shops and in closets.  But wait!  One man, Frank Engel, took a shot at Unruh, possibly hitting him (the forensics were a bit unclear on this) - but even this display of fortitude is compromised.  His resolve failing, Engel "could have fired again and killed him, but he refrained.  Later he would say, "I could have put a half dozen shots into him.  I don't know why I didn't do it.  I wish I had.""  Unruh would not be stopped until he barricaded himself in his house and was surrounded by dozens of police officers.  He eventually surrendered, and was committed to a mental institution.  Steynshire Test analysis: somewhat better, since someone took a crack at the gunman, but only a partial score is accorded - only one guy responded in a sufficiently "old American ideals" fashion, and even he lost his nerve.  Plus, Engel shot at Unruh from behind - further research required to determine whether this is sufficiently "manly" to warrant positive reviews.  Oh, and Unruh ended up in the loony bin, when he should have been hung by the thumbs.  Evidently the emasculation of America extends further back than we had feared.

Alright.  Twenty more years into the past we must go.  Francis Crowley.  In 1925, his older brother John got into a fight with a police officer in NYC, a fight witnessed by dozens of onlookers, none of whom intervened.  Crowley swore revenge against the officer.  A month later, the two encounter each other once again - this time a running gun battle between the two ends with both the officer and Crowley dead.  Again, no one interfered to assist the officer.  John's younger step-brother, Francis, grows up hating cops, eventually murdering one in 1931.  A massive manhunt ensues, until Crowley is finally located in an apartment on West 90th Street.  A virtual war ensues: hundreds of police officers, armed with everything up to and including machine guns, begin a shootout with Crowley, who fires back at the police and the gathering crowd.  He is eventually subdued when five officers break down the door of the apartment.  More than 10,000 spectators surrounded the building and watched the barrage.  Steynshire Test analysis: well, this is a little better (lots of guns!) but there remain a couple of problems.  First, it was the nanny state in the form of the police which really subdued Crowley (and why did it take five cops to take him down? he was only armed with .38s!). Second, the crowd, by some reports reaching nearly 15,000 people, just sat back like bovines, doing nothing - why didn't they rush Crowley in his apartment?  They had him outnumbered nearly 15,000 to one!  Wankers, the lot of them.

This is distressing.  We just know something has been irrevocably rent asunder in the body politic of the American people - yet we find it difficult to pinpoint either (a) when it happened or (b) events that occurred before it happened.  The challenge goes out!  Who can find documented examples of the "old American ideals of self-reliance and self-defence" being effected - we need examples of civilians under fire who did the manly thing: charged the gunman, kicked him in the ding-ding, grabbed the still-smoking weapon, cooly leveled it between his eyes and snarled "who's your daddy now, mofo?".  Or something like that.  And nothing too recent, mind you - that would throw off our whole "culture change" narrative.

Comments

[roger]

I totally agree that Derbyshire's comments are, well, insane. But a historical note - the response to Charles Whitman was complicated by the fact that, indeed, many students did get their guns. After Whitman finished with his first round of killings and woundings, there were shots fired back by various people that actually decreased his fire.

More relevant to the Whitman murder is that he apparently went to a shrink weeks before the killings to talk about his delusions, and the shrink dismissed him in fine Derbyshire fashion as just being stressed out and being sort girly to make a fuss about it.

Ah, macho days. We can see how that worked out.

[Ben]

Hmmm... So Whitman's shrink dismissed him as being a wimp for seeking help? Really? You have evidence of this?

Even if it were so, I would have a hard time seeing how today is better, where nothing could be done about a guy with obvious psychiatric issues -- despite being reported by one of his professors -- because stepping in might violate his privacy rights or some such.

[James Mayhall]

I cannot believe that you missed the recent post by a reader on NRO. He said that he was a new, assistant professor at Texas-Austin in 1966 when the dude was shooting from the clock tower. In the faculty offices, he heard a loud bang from down the hall. He entered a faculty office and found one English professor returning fire with a deer rifle while another fed him ammunition. So many people returned fire that all the clock faces had to be replaced. What do you have to say about this, scum.

As for myself, I am very interested in the case of a student who was shot through the arm, who watched the shooter exit the room, and who acted to barricade the door while the shooter was absent. The shooter came back. That guy saved some lives. He is a hero. However, had I been there, when the shooter turned his back, I would have seen my opportunity. All I would have needed is one hand on his throat and his neck would have been broken. Yes, if I had been there, more lives would have been saved. And the same is true of everyone I grew up with. What is the problem with the lack of testosterone in this country today? And, yes, I counsel all males to find training that will enable them to do what I just described.

[henry]

Actually, TEACHERS shot back at Whitman:

http://snipurl.com/1h2f5

[Apollo]

I don't think you did much research for this post. At least for the Texas shootings there were quite a few civilians firing with the police. And when the police stormed the tower, one of them was a citizen who was deputized on the spot.

[Tim of Angle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James_Northfield_Raid

[Joseph McNulty]

Let me see if I have this right. It was insane for Derbyshire or Steyn even to raise the question of self-defense, but it was okay for 32 students and professors at Virginia Tech to cower behind lecterns and desks, according to the Washington Post's David Mariniss, until killed by another student, who, to the best of our knowledge, had no special training or automatic weapons. What if this had happened in an Islamic school. The shooter might have killed the Imam and a few students, but the others in the class would have rushrd him and torn him limb from limb for his "attack on Islam." The skepticism of your blog comment is cheap and easy. Of course, it is facile to argue that in other instances, people did not intervene. What you have missed is, for example, in the Texas Tower shoorings, frat boys at the University of Texas got their guns from the frat houses and kept Whitman under fire in the tower until police arrived. Whitman had to shoot through the scuppers on the Tower, which greatly restricted his possible aim and view of targets. One reason why you do not find reports of this sort of thing is that leftists in the media have systematically purged such news from events in favor of their preference for government action rather than "vigilantism." If you will listen to recordings of the shooting at Virginia Tech you will hear that the shots were not rapid and were carefully aimed. As a former competitive pistol shot, I can tell you that it is not easy to his you target, especially an advancing or moving target, unless he is cowering behing a lectern or desk. If the thinking is only to preserve the safety of any individual, then the "best" defense is to play dead and hope the shooter will pump bullets into the guy next to you. But I would have thought that social cohesion demands a group response, which might have made all the difference at Virginia Tech in the absence of concealed-carry on campus.

[David Rogers]

Obviously, your readers know a LOT more about the Whitman case than you do. There were not just professors, but a large number of students and other civilians shooting at Whitman. Why? Texans with testoterone, a culture of self-defense, and shooting rifles.

Whitman killed a third of the people he killed before he started shooting from the top of the tower (including three unarmed women and two people he shot from behind a door). Once he popped up and people realized what he was doing, he was subjected to relentles return fire. As a result, and in contrast to the Virginia Tech massacre, Whitman (a marine sniper with a high-powered rifle that gave him a range of roughly a half-mile) was able to kill only 11 eleven people from the Tower (counting an unborn child).

A better-armed, better-trained killer in a fortified position killed a third as many people. Why? Guns in the hands and nerve in the minds of the people he wanted to make his victims.

And--FYI--Whitman shot back at the people shooting at him. In at least one case, Whitman barely missed--from almost a half-mile away.

This shouldn't take us away from two facts. (1) The killer is responsible for his actions. (2) The Virginia Tech administration is responsible for making sure no one could stop him.

[Ben]

Personally, I think everyone needs to dial down the vitriol. No reason to be nasty about any of this.

[Don Genereux]

2 incidents come to mind.

1) Northfield MN, 1876. The James-Younger gang (Frank&Jesse James, Cole&Bob Younger, at least 3 others) attempt to rob 2 banks simultaneously. The citizens fight back, wounding several of the gang. After forming a posse, they hound the gang relentless for several days. After the gang divides, the posse corners the Youngers at Hanska Slough, and kills all but Bob Younger.

2) Coffeyville KS, 1892. The Dalton gang (Bob/Grat/Emmett, Bill Powers, Dick Broadwell) attempt to rob the 2 banks simultaneously. When the alarm is raised, citizens armed with rifles and shotguns turn the main street and an adjoining alley into a killing zone. All but Emmett Dalton are killed; Emmett survives severe wounds, but spends most of the rest of his life in jail.

Caution: these incidents don't exactly fit the author's template. They were armed robberies which escalated into gun battles; the criminals didn't initiate the events by killing unarmed innocents.

[Arrine]

If only Derbyshire had been there to throw a book-it all would have turned out differently.

Derbyshire and Steyn are feeling helpless so they decide to heap derision on the only peole that care the only ones left that they can reach out and hurt the victims, the survivors, and their families.

Steyn and Derbyshire need to feel macho and superior-they would have acted differently even though we don't know all that transpired and in punishing the victims they align themselves with the perpetrator not heros like Librescu. Librescu who most likely through the fog of what was happening, through the kids trying to make sense of what they have never experienced before-ordered those kids to take action and escape out the windows. That's just as likely as the Derb scenario.

Funny how they have to say that these kids are "whimps" and blame feminism somehow-I guess to avoid the obvious fact that these mad MAN gunshooters are always MALE.

Yet by jumping through irrational hoops the Derb and Steyn have managed to blame women somehow-a weave of illogic worthy of well-nutters.

Conservatives should be embarrassed by the cheap manner in which they have tried to garner attention for themsleves by doing the novel- attacking the victims in such a timely fashion before even all the facts are out.

Of course the perpetrator is no longer around to kick so they kick the most vulnerable at the most opputune time-truly hateful. They want to feel superior that they would not have died that they could have made a difference-yet Librescu tried. Granata an ex military member went down to investigate and was shot, the kid on the lacross team with a blakc belt died, the gal that studied martial arts died.

Deb and Steyn with their book throwing methods would have made it all better-ya riiiiight.

[ian asch]

I don't pretend to know the specific details of how the killings at VT occurred. What I know is that over 30 people were murdered and many others wounded by a single guy with a hand gun, and that the number does seem very high. So yes it raises a legitmate question: did anyone try to stop him during this rampage? And if not, why not?
As for an analogy, a few years ago a gunman walked into a lecture hall at a SUNY school. One of the students acted and was able to disarm the man. The student got shot but survived. No one else was hurt. Now are these events precisely equivalent? Not exactly. (What happened at SUNY was closer to the crime in Montreal where a deranged man walked into a school, told the men to leave, and then proceeded to shoot the women). But it shows that people can react, and more importantly that perhaps lives could have been saved.

[Arrine]

typo-

the kid on thre lacrosse team with a ^black belt^ died.

[Arrine]

Well first of all the idiot had two guns hell he probably brought a hammer to throw.

Also I worked in a bar to get through college. It once took ten of us to remove a guy to the parking lot. Usually drunks are pretty easy to remove-it only takes about one or two bouncers but this guy took all the bouncers, bartenders and the DJs with other staff to remove.

The bouncers swore up and down that the guy had to have been on PCP-but the cops a few weeks later told us -no he was simply NUTS.

I'm no expert but having witnessed that I think it is highly likely for the insane to experience such rage and perhaps a chemical inbalance of the brain that prevents them from feeling pain in the normal ways. The bouncers were using every trick in the book and none of the usual tricks were working.

I wouldn't doubt for a minute that it was possible for Cho to be in this same state of rage. It's unique and nothing would prepare you for it-not any normal situation.

[Jim Rockford]

Whitman had a brain tumor the size of a golfball in his head. So what the Psychiatrist said or didn't probably had no effect.

In Oregon Shooter Kip Kinkel was jumped by a football player as he reloaded and disarmed.

Here Psych-Cho reloaded by one victim's account and everyone just lay dead as he shot the wounded and dying to finish them off. The one survivor was shielded by the body on top of him.

What Tarantino doesn't get is that passive behavior KILLS. The VT people just passively waited for the State to arrive and it didn't in time. WAITING PASSIVELY kills.

Libs believe the State is everywhere, all encompassing, no one should do anything without being an Agent of the State, being such an Agent makes you morally, intellectually, and physically superior.

In Katrina, FEMA and the Red Cross and the City and the State of Louisiana all predictably failed. But ordinary people got their boats and axes out and saved many lives. In 9/11 the only response that did anything was the ordinary people on Flight 93.

The State is very good at slowly organizing massive amounts of resources for a really big and well-planned project: Golden Gate Bridge, TVA, Hoover Dam. It is not very good at acting quickly and in emergencies acting passive will get you killed.

MANY lives would have been saved if the Psych-Cho had been ambushed when he came into the room, and as many male students as possible fought him to subdue or kill him, whatever it takes. They had a responsibility and a duty to do so IMHO due to the nature of the confined killing ground (escape not possible for many).

Contrast that with the Appalachian School of Law shooting a year ago, three students ran back to their vehicles to get their gun and disarmed the shooter (a Nigerian Immigrant expelled but let back in by Liberal PC). Or the Pearl MS HS shooting where an Assistant Principal ran to his truck to get his gun and disarmed at gunpoint the shooter before he could drive to the nearby Junior High.

It seems having a weapon makes men more willing to fight to stop the killing. It can take a long time for police and SWAT to arrive.

Yes Police and SWAT are better trained. So was the National Guard at Katrina. They didn't get there in time either. Police arrived just as Psych-Cho shot himself.

In an emergency there is no time to "wait for the authorities." You have to ACT and stop being passive.

Big Government Liberalism is unmatched in doing big, slowly executed things that requires lots and lots of resources. Speedy it's not and emergencies require ACTION not passivity.

This is far bigger than VT: the next natural disaster, derailment of rail cars with toxic material, terrorist attack, freeway accident may require YOU to act to save lives. We ought to encourage this.

[Jim Treacher]

"Let me see if I have this right. It was insane for Derbyshire or Steyn even to raise the question of self-defense..."

You don't have it right. They didn't "raise the question of self-defense." They mocked and condemned a bunch of unarmed murder victims for not morphing into Neo and saving the day.

[James Mayhall]

Does Tarantino not post here? Tarantino, what is the deal? Why are you not responding to my post? Are you a coward?

[Joseph McNulty]

I do not recall Derb making any comment that women were to "blame" for the shooting. In fact, they are among its most prominent victims. I am sure Steyn did not since the thrust of his piece is the Canadian "men" abandoned the women to their fate and refused to protect them. It is very easy to shout "blame the victim" so that rational thought ceases, but this is a situation crying out for some insight. It would make no sense to "blame the victim" since we all know they were murdered by a maniac. The question is whether, in such fraught circumatances, where we all are unsure what we would do, resistance was the better course. The best insight is this: yes, resistance is more dangerous for individuals (who might draw the killer's attention and be killed by a shooter facing resistance), but safer for the group as a whole, which survives despite the loss of a few individuals. The point is that resistance is the only meaningful option beside concealed-carry on campus. Lighting candles, placing Teddybears, and urging greater attentiveness is not going to stop the next Cho. Doing nothing in a "gun-free zone" only insures that the only one with the gun is the killer. Throwing a book might have been a useful distraction, if followed up by a group rush of the shooter. Getting off an aimed shot would have been difficult. You would only have, what, 10 or 15 feet to get across and then you would have been on top of the shooter (unless he retreated right out the door). Refusing to think about this only means that the next mass shooting will again be "sheep to the slaughter." Don't tell me that you are serious about this when (1) you will oppose, on civil liberties' grounds, mental health institutional commitment and (2) when you know that a "gun-free zone" has never stopped a homicidal maniac willing to give up his own life. Do away with guns, and the next time it will be a two-handed sword or knife. What if Cho had known that someone, he could not know whom, in that classroom probably had a concealed-carry permit, had been trained, and knew when and how to use a weapon. My experience has been that getting familiar with a gun only increases your respect for it. You know that firing it at someone is a life-altering experience even if you are within the law. What if the Gertapo had known that every Jew was armed with a firearm and would fanatically resist to the death any attempt to round him up for the camps. You would have either had far fewer "knocks on the door in middle of the night" or many more dead Nazis. Either one works for me.

[Pierre Legrand]

Well that just about covers you making an ass out of yourself. If it is any consolation for you Neo-Con John Podhoretz who apparently doesnt even entertain the idea of giving your life to save others. Big Surprise.

I suggest you read a Nation of Cowards and mull over your fear. Fear is an ugly thing when it reduces a person to a ball of flesh curled up on the floor awaiting death...I will grant you that I might end up that way in the same situation but it is repugnant to me to see nothing wrong with me ending up that way.

JPods ode to cowardic

And why it is important to make sure your priorities are in order, life matters. Your life matters a lot, defend yourself.

Nation of Cowards

[Joe McNulty]

One more thing: he had a 9 mm hand gun and a .22 auto. The criticism of the 9 mm auto has been that it lacks "stopping power." Even someone hit with motal effect is not taken immediately out of the fight. Even a "bleeder" would that hits an artery may mean than the victim remains conscious for 30-120 seconds while his blood pressure crashes. That is a long time in extremis. The trend is back towards the .45 acp and 10 mm. The .22 is, well, a .22, fine for target shooting or a mob hit, where you put five into the victim's head, but not the gun you want to go into combat with. As Derb says, it is not likely to hit something vital. I have read both Derb's and Steyn's pieces, and you are wrong when you say that they heap derision on the victims. If fact, Derb is careful to say that no one can be sure how he will react in such circumstances. You owe them an apology. The only way to avoid what you criticize is not to discuss this topic at all. That is just "victimology," the continued "Oprah-ization" of America. That is how we got to this situation.

[Arrine]

Joseph-

Not women-

feminism was Steyn's argument.

It's plain stupid to make those kinds of arguments before the investigation is over-and they made these arguments before it had even really started.

I guess they feel the rush to go to press-and that's usually a mine field of error.

You do not know what those kids went through, what they tried or did not try to do. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Granata - ex military -the professor who went to investigate-he died trying to do something. Is he a wimp?

The AF ROTC kid that died-are you calling him a coward Derb and Steyn?

The kid on the lacrosse team with a black belt? Are they saying he wasn't interested in self defense?

The gal that studied taekwondo? A wussie not interested in self defense?

These kids spent a lot of time trying to convince themsleves that the gunshots were the noise of construction. Something the profs told them it was. Something they were use to in the environment-that didn't help their response time.

In fact had they said those are gunshots the "macho" types like Derb and Steyn would have told them-"ah you're overreacting"...

But then that would be UNFAIR because I don't know that.

And the Derb and Steyn don't know what all happened either.

A gal threw up when she saw her prof's head blown off according to a report in the Washington Post-that's something the Hollywood movies don't prepare you for-and something the Derb might have fell victim to-but he's judging from the sidelines that he would have been able to overcome it all.

the guy is a real ass.

As someone part of the active duty military community I particualrly loathe that whiner-and he whines about effectively hangnails compared to what the active duty community is going through.

I use to like Steyn but now he has a book to sell and he looks completely idiotic following Derb in the We are Sooooo Macho Club.

Two pasty white guys afraid of the sun.

[Arrine]

Joe-

He hollowed out some of the bullets it was in the footage.

It is also perhaps how he was able to blow half his face off-which was reported by the police.

[Kevin Jaeger]

The criticism of the 9 mm auto has been that it lacks "stopping power."

I understand he was using hollow point ammo. Getting hit with a 9mm hollow point in the torso will certainly ruin your day.

And I think you are misreading Steyn's column. Where he says "The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. he is not questioning the manhood of the murdered students. He's making a societal comment that in today's atmosphere you can barely acknowledge the concept of acting "manly".

Certainly the unhinged reaction to his column underlines his point. In the past it would have been standard practice to praise the heroes and shame the cowards after a courage-testing event. After the Montreal massacre, the men should have had the decency to be ashamed of themselves for standing around while the women were shot.

If Steyn errs, it's in saying that only the Holocaust survivor took steps to act. We now know that's not true - others tried to block doors, too.

[Owen]

How about Todd Beamer and others on Flight 93. Maybe a few more Todd Beamers at Va Tech would have been a good thing.

[Kevin Jaeger]

And you want self-reliance? How about last week?
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/NEWS01/704200369

Venus Ramey has earned lots of fame in her 82 years.

For some time, thieves had been breaking into the building to steal the machines to sell for scrap. She hadn't been able to catch anyone in the act until last week.

She drove over to the building and blocked the truck sitting there.

When she asked a man what he was doing, he replied "scrapping," and said he would leave.

"I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walking stick as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it. If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then tried to flag down people driving by. When one stopped, she asked them to call 911. Eventually, three people were arrested - one at the scene and two others walking on a nearby road.

"They've been stealing from me for years. Those good-for-nothing slobs," she said.

THAT's the spirit of self-reliance and self-defence we're talking about. You're mockery of the very idea of regular citizens standing up for themselves is sick.

Maybe this particular psy-Cho couldn't be stopped. I agree we have no idea how many victims made any effort to defend themselves, and in any case it's uncivilized to speak ill of innocent murder victims. But it's entirely normal to wonder if it's possible, and healthy to expect young men to defend themselves to the extent it's possible.

[Joe McNulty]

The gunshop owner said that he bought "ball" ammo, not hollow points. If he had hollow points (what, exactly, were they?), where did he get them? The wounds that I have seen on the injured look like "ball" ammo to me, but I am no expert. In addition, semi-autos loaded with hollow points tend to jam. I am suggesting not that his gun jammed, but that he would have taken steps to avoid the possibility. This is not determinative, but if is suggestive. I stand ready to be corrected. I assume that the .22 was loaded with rimfire shells (not likely to stop a determined attacker). I am surprised at the vehemence of the comments against Derb and Steyn. They hit a nerve in our "Oprah-fied" culture where self-defense has been delegitimized, almost stigmatized. This may have meant sense when people were flying planes to Cuba, but in an era when people crach planes into skyscrapers, it is nuts.

[Kevin Jaeger]

Joe, I could be wrong about what he was shooting, but some of the pictures psy-Cho released showed hollow points. Whether that's what he was using that day or not I couldn't say.

I agree you'd have an excellent chance of bringing down a guy if he only had a .22 rimfire, though.

[Jim Treacher]

"And I think you are misreading Steyn's column. Where he says 'The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men.' he is not questioning the manhood of the murdered students. He's making a societal comment that in today's atmosphere you can barely acknowledge the concept of acting 'manly'."

You know, I think I'm gonna wait and see if Steyn tries that tack before I react to it. That doesn't sound like him. He tends to say what he means, which is why, usually, I like him.

[Kevin Jaeger]

Jim, if you're reading it that way I can understand your reaction but I honestly think you're misinterpreting his words.

When he says "if you'll forgive the expression" I really don't think he's calling the murdered students pussies. I believe it's more like saying you can't utter the words "act like a man" these days without asking for permission.

[b]

Just as this VA Tech example does not prove a condition of feminization of the American male, so too do your cherry-picked examples--one of which directly contradicts your point--fail to prove the opposite.

[James Mayhall]

It is amazing that no one cares to examine the reasoning appropriate to the situation at VT.

Here it is:

You are in a classroom that has one door. There are fourteen other students and a teacher in the classroom. A maniac enters the door and starts shooting people randomly. What do you do?

1. Wait calmly for your bullet.
2. Hope that he runs out of ammunition before he gets to you.
3. Hope that he recognizes that he is in the wrong classroom.
4. Hope that he recognizes you as a friend.
5. Attack the shooter.
6. Pretend to be dead and hope that you get overlooked.

What are you going to do folks? The only alternatives are A. get the bullet in the back while you are looking away, B. maybe get the bullet in the chest while charging the attacker, or C. pretend to be dead and hope to get overlooked.

Apparently, at VT everyone chose A or C. At least one who chose C survived. However, there are problems with C. If everyone chooses C then everyone gets killed. If you are close to the door, there is no opportunity to choose C. If you choose C, you give up the opportunity to help others.

Finally, look at the case of the few individuals who are close to the door. They do not have choice C. They choose A or B. I cannot for the life of me understand why one of these persons would choose A over B. Knowing that the bullet is coming, why would you not attack the shooter. Can someone explain it to me. I see that choice as a symptom of nervous dysfunction.

The shooter hit at least 32 who died and at least 15 who survived. Two were not on the second floor of Norris Hall. So the shooter walked among at least 45 people in four classrooms on the second floor of Norris Hall and, with the exception of the Holocaust Survivor, no one attacked him, not even when he turned his back to go to another room. Excuse me, but there is a serious problem here. I am not calling it cowardice. I am purposely using a vague term like nervous dysfunction. However, can you not see that if everyone suffers from nervous dysfunction then everyone dies like sheep, unless they are overlooked. There needs to be a program to overcome this problem of nervous dysfunction.

[Khepri]

Pithy? [rolleyes at the bandwagon nature of the usage of a word that deserves no better than death]

It is indeed a fair question to ask why there is no evidence of a "Flight 93" mentality to be found amongst those lined up against a wall in a classroom.

It begs the question, and the answer, I believe, is to be found in the utter and absolute failure of the ideologies of the Left.

The groundwork for what failed is laid out by Evan Sayet in his talk at the Heritage Foundation entitled 'Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"..'

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev030507a.cfm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

No wonder the Left is so eager to debate "gun control" in the aftermath when it is their entire ideligy that failed here...

From letting the "wacko" slip through there system to the emascualting of the male population...FAILED.

Debating gun control they risk taking hits on one issue rather than having their entire way of thinking called into question.

Far be it to begin to broach this subject...preemtively chalk the suggestion up to macho bravado won't you?

Spit.

[James Mayhall]

Oh, by the way, my hunch is that if someone had charged the shooter then he would have immediately shot himself. It seems clear to me that the one outcome that he could not accept is surviving this incident.

[pc]

Nugent shares some stories where folks who hadn't been disarmed (neutered) by the gun-free-zone-loving nanny state were able to defend themselves and put a quick end to the violent madman in their midst. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

[Jay Currie]

Given zero training and zero options it is not surprising that there was a lack of resistance on the part of the victims. Tragic, but not surprising.

Any number of folks have been writing bits on how these incidents underscore the need for gun laws or early identification of whacko freaks or some such. My own sense is that they illustrate the tragic lack or preparedness on the part of citizens for just this sort of eventuality.

Rather than saying, "Who knows what I would do in this situation?" it would be wiser to consider what you would do.

Block the door...duh. This is basic. You hear shots fired you - without a committee meeting - get on with the task of piling every single stick of furniture in front of the door. If you have help, great, if not...so what.

Look for escape. You are up two stories. A jump is tough; but a drop from someones outstretched arms? Likely doable. Is there a rope? Is there a rope-like object? Are you wearing jeans? can you tie a knot?

No furniture, no rope. Three guys crouched at the door, the rest of the class ready to dive in. The trash movie boot hits the door, in the shooter comes and over he goes. Dogpile.

A pack not a herd.

So now, perhaps, it will dawn on university and school admins that, rather like fire drill, shooter drill should be part of the routine. So should basic things like doors which lock from the inside. A deadbolt would have saved many, if not most, of this nasty piece of work's victims.

[Pierre Legrand]

As someone part of the active duty military community I particualrly loathe that whiner-and he whines about effectively hangnails compared to what the active duty community is going through.

I use to like Steyn but now he has a book to sell and he looks completely idiotic following Derb in the We are Sooooo Macho Club.

Two pasty white guys afraid of the sun.

So as ex-military you are advocating rolling into a ball and waiting to die? Not saying that I wouldn't do that but thats not what I want to do going in. Its not about being heroic, its about being brave and we should expect bravery from ourselves when under trial. If we do not expect bravery then cowardics is what we will find.

Perhaps that is alright for some but it is not alright for me. Btw enough examples have been given of others not accepting their fate and rolling up into a ball waiting to die that the premise of this post is shredded.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

I must say, my life has been truly enriched by the discussion here. I now understand that big government liberalism is the reason that 32 people were killed. Reliance on the nanny state promotes passivity, thus weakning the individuals will to survive.

To correct this problem, I propose the following: we immediately disband the fire department, police department and EMS services. Forcing people to rely on said services promotes reliance on the nanny state, thus promoting a culture of passivity and weakening our civilizational will. Our weakened civilizational will, of course, results in a declining birth-rate, which will lead to the extinction of western civilization.

By forcing people to deal with life and death emergencies on their own, we will ensure that individual self-reliance is strong, and that those unable to adapt shall be removed from the gene pool. An added benefit, will be the tax savings which can then be redirected to buy new tanks for soldiers in Afghanistan (note to self: unemployed emergency services personnel can be redeployed to Canadian Armed Forces units with minimal training).

Of course, lowering taxes will also allow the magical free-market to empower individuals to invest their RRSPs in fortune 500 companies, thusly creating a perfect, capitalist utopia.

I shall tell my brothers and sisters in the leftist, socialist, fascist, islamic conspiracy that I have found a new path to enlightenment, and I shall not need their Koran's, vegan food, or Audioslave CD's any more.

[Mark]

Let me state, right off the bat that I'm a really big fan of Mark Steyn. However, I have to admit that your post was, well, every bit as funny as something Steyn himself would write.

[Mark]

BTW, props for including info that that contradicted some of the evidence that you posted.

[Mark]

I'm missing something. Derbyshire, Steyn, et al claim that we have drained our culture of heroism. As proof, they cite the V-Tech massacre, where it appears that only a few of the victims reacted in a pro-active, "heroic" manner.

But isn't heroism by its very nature a rare quality, the product of an "extraordinary" individual? Isn't it the singular character of the heroic act the very thing which makes it heroic? If all of us were heroes, would there be such a thing as heroism?

You can see were I'm going. How can a scarcity of heroism foretell the end of the heroic ideal, when scarcity is heroism's most salient quality?

[Ragnar HAROLDSEN]

This is a probelm in more than one dimension. If you have ever been under fire when you are not armed, your reaction will be to get away as fast as possible, or take cover, or play dead. Also you have to know that the shooter is alone, because if he has another shooter with him, which you don't know, that will make you reluctant to take him one. Unlike most of the posters on this board, I have been shot at , when I did not have a weapon to return fire, and my reaction was to get the hell out of there. If I had a weapon I would have definitely retruned fire, but until you have been in this situation you should not make presumptions about how or what others should have done.

However, I think Steyn has a valid point but he chose the wrong
situation to address it. Think of something on a much larger scale, Darfur. Everybody knows the the Sudanese government is ordering the slaughers in Darfur. The militisas are backed up by Antonov aircrac and other military aircraft from the Sudanese airforce. There is no question that the President of Sudan and his clique are mass murderers. Various progressives have spent millions of dollars on full page ads in the New York Times and other papers , pressing President Bush to do something. This is all wringing their hands while the poor citizens of Darfur continue to be murdered. The same money pissed away on full page ads, could hire very effecient mercenaries, probably, White South African vets who work for Sandline and who generally are employed by diamond and gold mining companies in troubled third world hotspots. . The mercenaries don't care about who they are protecting, if they get paid, they do the job, and they do it very effeciently. The fact that they are white south Africans may give the people who piss money away on New York times ads pause, but unfortuantely while they are whining, more innoncent people in Darfur are being murdered. Let me also posit, that a few air raids on Khartoum, especially on the presidential palace, would have a sobering effect on the Sudanese military and their support for the militias doing the murdering in Darfur. And for that matter , hiring a few contracters like those known to work for many governments and
for other unnnamed organizations, could result in seizsure of the Swiss and Bahamain bank accounts of the President of Sudan and his friends. This would also make them hesitate to continue the Darfur campaign. And cruise missiles can be built with off the shelf parts and use mapping available from google, and the cross reference their course with checks from global positioning satellites, just like the devices in your car (Tom Tom, etc) in fact
a New Zealander built a regulation cruise missile in his spare time, in his garage, from parts anyone can buy. The hand wringers who are pissing away money on NY Times adverts, could have employed some engineering talent to manufacture a few such devices, and send them up the ass crack of the Sudanese Presdient and his pals, and some of the militia leaders in Darfour. Now that , is why you dont wait for the nanny state to intervene, because if you do wait , a lot of people continue to be murdered, as in Rwanda, when the noble Mr. Clinton and his secretary of state and Richard Boucher , all knew exactly what was going on, but did nothing.

[James Mayhall]

Dear Self-Loathing Multiculturalist:

Why do you call yourself "THE...?"

Anyway, I enjoyed your humor but it did show your lack of age. In 1950, most people in the USA obtained heat from a coal stove located in the middle of the living room. If you were wealthy and lived where basements can be built, the coal stove was in the basement. Your local town might have had a volunteer fire department, a token police force, and a token sheriff. In 1950, most Americans grew up learning how to care for themselves. Heck, they could even do auto maintenance. The vast majority of people in the world today live in these same conditions, or worse conditions, and are rather good at caring for themselves. What you might call Survivalism is not a lunatic dream but a memory of what was commonplace 50 years ago. Our wealth has done many things for us but it has also greatly diminished resourcefulness in the individual and respect for that resourceful.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

Glad you enjoyed the humour.

The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist is term that appeared in a Mark Steyn article attacking journalist Robert Fisk. Fisk had been travelling in Afghanistan during the bombing in 2001 and was attacked by a group of enraged villagers. Fisk penned an article claiming that he sympathized with the villagers, and that he would have reacted the same way if his home had been destroyed. Steyn claimed that Fisk's comments prove that he is overcome by "western self-loathing", because he tried to understand the perspective of people who's homes had just been destroyed.

As for the rest of your points, I am familiar with the history of America pre-1950 (Ontario, where I live, was somewhat similar). I simply feel that the argument that a nanny-state has crushed the "survival instinct" or our "civilization will" is completely specious. And to your points, I don't see how getting your own coal for a fire-place makes you more "resourceful". I don't put coal in my furnace, but I still pay for my heating and electrical bills. How does the act of getting coal make me more resourceful in the environment in which I live?

I think what you're talking about has less to do with a "nanny state" and more to do with different technological levels in society: one that is industrial and urban, and another that is rural and agricultural. The fact that you don't need to chop down trees to survive in an urban environment isn't proof that "resourcefullness" is no longer a part of the human condition.

[James Mayhall]

Dear TLSM:

I concede the point on coal. I was thinking more about reliance on sheriffs, police, and fire departments. Back in the old days, you could rely on no one. Calling the police was a joke. So, to take an example from my past, if some drunk parked on your lawn and began a tirade against the imaginary person in the passenger seat, you dealt with it. There were the options of waiting for him to sober up or go to sleep but it never occurred to us to use those. We would focus his attention, sober him up, and send him on his way.

[Phil]

Hey Self-Loathing Multiculturalist

You've got me worried, Audioslave(RIP)
is my favorite band. But I've always
considered myself A right leaning libertarian. Should I sell off my
guns and start eating salads?

[James Mayhall]

Because I have received no response to my rather gently stated points, permit me to state the underlying ethical point.

What to make of the nanny state? Because of my huge wealth, I am willing to pay huge taxes so that my city can have a relatively reasonable number of policemen. Its expected, you know, keeping up with the Jones and all that. However, I am not willing to be dependent on policemen. They are a luxury of great wealth. (Not technology, but wealth.) It's nice to be able to call the police for the least neighborhood disturbance. But I have never needed to call the police. If I should need to call them in the future, I will be deeply ashamed. My manhood/personhood will be shaken to its roots. Dependence on the police is dependence on the nanny state. Each and every one of us should be ashamed of such dependence.

Tarantino quotes Derbyshire as follows:

"This issue is: Have cultural changes moved us too far from the old American ideals of self-reliance and self-defense, towards a more "European" style of responding to crises by waiting passively for the authorities to do something? Seems to me this is a perfectly valid topic for discussion, as are corollary questions like: Supposing the older ideal was still dominant, would it have made a difference in this particular case? ... If these are not fair topics for discussion, I wish someone would tell me why."

Have I not explicated Derbyshire's point in a compelling way? Where do I have it wrong?

[James Mayhall]

The Logical Problem in Tarantino's Challenge.

Tarantino writes:

"This is distressing. We just know something has been irrevocably rent asunder in the body politic of the American people - yet we find it difficult to pinpoint either (a) when it happened or (b) events that occurred before it happened. The challenge goes out! Who can find documented examples of the "old American ideals of self-reliance and self-defence" being effected - we need examples of civilians under fire who did the manly thing..."

Obviously, Tarantino's question and his interpretation of it loads the dice in his favor. What he wants readers to do is go into the past and find examples of mass murders where some Americans acted heroically. The bogus nature of the question is obvious: if some Americans had acted heroically then the events would not now be known as mass murders. So, Tarantino has created an unanswerable question. To fairly assess the matter at hand, Tarantino would have to consider all past cases that COULD HAVE BECOME mass murders but did not because some American acted heroically. Obviously, the number of those cases is incredibly large.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

"You've got me worried, Audioslave(RIP)
is my favorite band. But I've always
considered myself A right leaning libertarian. Should I sell off my
guns and start eating salads?"

Or you could keep the guns, the steaks and listen to Lee Greenwood. Personally, though, I miss the old RATM.

" But I have never needed to call the police. If I should need to call them in the future, I will be deeply ashamed. My manhood/personhood will be shaken to its roots. Dependence on the police is dependence on the nanny state. Each and every one of us should be ashamed of such dependence."

It's worth remembering, James, that the reason that the police exist in the first place, is to protect rich people from poor people. An often forgotten fact about the development of law-enforcement in the anglo-saxon world, was that it was meant to ensure that the working poor were "disciplined by the wage system". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_police#_note-7

The existence of law-enforcement has nothing to do with a liberal conspiracy to deprive men of their manhood. It is a part of the existing economic structure that is required in order to ensure order.

To your earlier point, getting a drunk off my front lawn is one thing (I've had to do that before). Creating a possee to take out a sniper is another. Why not take it a step further? Why not, when a crime occurs, get a gang of people together, surround the accused's house and, if they feel he/she is guilty, string them up and hang them? Is that not the ultimate manifestation of taking personal responsibility, not just for your safety, but for the safety of the community? If random groups of people decide they want to use their "resourcefullness" to stop crime pre-emptively, then why should the nanny state stop them?

[Paul O]

A couple thoughts: first, the target of opportunity presented by a University campus, where target density is high, and rules generally prohibit weapons in any event (so the populace remains vulnerable). Doubly so as these are youth, who are still developing the skills to look after themselves.

But more to the point of the discussion: unless I've misread, Texans didn't "learn" from this event, as a hostage-taker at NASA (Houston) on Friday apparently ended his own life: neither the adults being threatened at the scene, nor even the Nanny State were the primary actors in the endgame but served only to contain the situation.

If the VT murderer had chosen a less-populated target, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

[James Mayhall]

Dear TSLM:

You write:

"Why not, when a crime occurs, get a gang of people together, surround the accused's house and, if they feel he/she is guilty, string them up and hang them? Is that not the ultimate manifestation of taking personal responsibility, not just for your safety, but for the safety of the community?"

You just jumped the shark. I am not a law unto myself. I treasure our criminal justice system, though it has many imperfections, and would not consider setting myself up as judge. When I say that I would be ashamed to need a policeman, I am talking about a very small part of the system, namely, that part charged with preventing and solving crimes. They are not charged with adjudicating crimes, and I am happy with our adjudication system.

As regards your comments on the economic system, it might be true that the original need for the police was to discipline the workers. However, that is not the locus of crime today. Today, it can come from anywhere. You might find that the president of your local university is parked in front of your house and exposing himself to ladies pushing strollers down the sidewalk.