The high ground

The Virginia Tech. Massacre is a truly horrifying event.  What parent wishes to even contemplate the nightmare of identifying one of their children in such circumstances.

Alas, that is the world we live in.  Over the weekend, we spoke with a volunteer firefighter who said he personally knew of four instances were parents ran over their own children.  The heartbreak is unimaginable.

Strong though those emotions may be, we cannot be governed by them.  Once the shock wears off, life must go on.  And here is where it gets interesting.

The gun control movement has never been weaker.   They have always been opportunists, quick to play upon fear, sensationalism and flippant soundbites.  They know their business.  When something goes wrong, offer a quick, feel-good solution. 

This time it is different, however.  This time people aren't interested.  Part of the problem is that such incidents are rare - so rare that they excite 24-hour coverage.

Additionally, there is now a wealth of information that massacres of this sort are helped rather than hindered by gun laws.  The legendary Dave Kopel nails it in the Wall Street Journal, and the hated Instapundit does a credible job of explaining this in its own right.

Firearms, after all, are nothing more than tools.  They can be used to kill the innocent, but they are also often the only means by which the few and the weak can defend themselves from the strong and the many.

We noted this before in a discussion about anti-logic poster boy Tim Lambert.

Lambert is justly famous for this bit of idiocy:

If the law disarms attackers, then it can make self defence possible where it would have been impossible if the attacker was armed.

Of course the law disarms the law-abiding only; criminals have no problem obtaining illegal or even makeshift weapons.

Moreover, they probably don't even need them.  A 6'4" man in his twenties armed with a baseball bat is more than a match for a 68-year-old grandmother in a walker.  We'd love for Lambert to elaborate on her possibilities for self-defense.

Americans have relearned this hard lesson: guns can murder, but they can also defend.  Indeed, they are used far more often to save life than to take it.

What is important is not the object, but the minds of those that use the object.

As the Instapundit points out, armed law-abiding citizens are not scary, they are reassuring.  In a former career, it came out that the Posse carried.  Co-workers who became appraised of this knowledge expressed relief.  Several stated that if there was trouble, they would take cover behind us, rather than rely on the police.

We recall one incident several years ago where a high-speed chase concluded out in front of a friend's house late one evening.  We were guests and the party was winding down when the sound of the chase and its concluding collision were heard outside.

Someone went to the door to see the commotion and spied the criminal, fleeing on foot - and possibly carrying a gun.

"He's got a gun!" she cried and the house was thrown into commotion.  The immediate reaction was to look at us.  "Are you carrying?" someone asked.

We nodded and drew our pistol and took up a position behind the back door, where the perp was seen running.

There was a tension in the room, not just from the danger, but from the awareness that everyone else there was unarmed.

Happily, law enforcement was on the scene and the perp wasn't armed after all.

But the lesson was learned.  Previously we had been mocked for carrying by many of our friends.  Never again.  Several went out after that night and obtained permits of their own.  The feelings of helplessness, the realization that the police would be too late and that even a friendly home in a good neighborhood could become a crime scene had made an impression.

Our literary hero Mark Steyn cuts to the root of the issue, which is that people cause crime.  He also points to the culture of victimhood and passivity.  Last night, we instructed the oldest of the Junior Posse members in self-defense.  We spoke for the first time of how firearms might be defeated, how one should run away from a knife but towards a gun and we were clear that in the dangerous world, someone you are on your own.

It is a hard lesson to learn for those used to be coddled, but a necessary one.  The illusion of safety is passing; terrorism has shown just how frail our lives are.

The choice is now between victimhood and survival.  The forces of gun control realize they have been beaten.  Even the usual gun prohibitionists are muted if not silent.

The siren song of gun control has been proven a failure.  We have finally seized the high ground.

Comments

[Hogarth]

Over the weekend, we spoke with a volunteer firefighter who said he personally knew of four instances were parents ran over their own children.

When, when will we see the light and ban cars? For Christ's sake, can't we do it for the children???

[submandave]

To hell with banning guns, I say cut out the middle man and just ban the attacks. If we do that then there is no reason to even discuss self-defense (defending from what?). That also takes care of the big-thug/tiny-granny disconnect you mentioned. Or we could just pass legislation that would make the granny stronger than the thug.

See, you have no idea of the power of the law.

[Peter Cunningham]

From Australia (police state of!):

Has anyone considered the wonderful irony of the Democrats and the plethora of bleeting doogooders who demand tighter gun controls and bans on handguns?

The massacre was carried out in an environment - a university campus where nobody was allowed to have a gun.

It was the law and an expellable offence.

The law was created by the University management and of course the plethora of meddling doogooders, and supported by the Virginia Police Chiefs.

Even students and teachers who have carry licences (quite a few) couldn't (and can't) take their state approved self defence guns onto campus.

So here was / and remains the ULTIMATE environment of absolute gun control and prohibition.

This is the very environment that gun haters, populist media and social engineers are intent on creating!

"NO guns" - a perfect world! Well... no legal guns anyway!

But people died there anyway, because the killer simply ignored law.

The ban didn't protect anyone - quite the reverse.

How many laws does it take before people alert to the fact that laws do NOT and cannot stop those who simply ignore law.

Australia, Britain or in USA it's the same.

Imposing draconian laws and restrictions on legitimate, accredited gun owners has done nothing to curb either crime or homicide.

Laws are NOT management tools - Laws merely define crime.

Neither laws nor police can protect people, and police are not obliged to protect individuals - they are sworn to uphold law.

Stop and think about this. Law appplies only when broken - ie - when you or I become victims.

Not having guns on campus in fact protracted the massacre because accredited citizens were stopped by law to counter a madman and defend people.

The dead and injured can thank the Virginia Chiefs of Police and the Viginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker.

Hiincker stated last year "I'm sure the university community is appreciative(sic) of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

This law related to overturning a bill put by Todd Gilbert on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

PUT YOURSELF in the frightening situation of barricading in a room whilst a human predator is outside intent on murdering all.

-- The police might be outside huddling behind trees with their guns, whilst we are the meat.

-- What would we prefer - a book on poetry or a gun?

It appears to me that people expect too much of laws, and those responsible have directed them wrongly.
The only outcome has been at great expense to torment and alienate a substantially responsible group from within our community.

But if the eternal doogooders and mainstream media are to be believed, then I guess it's more important to "feel safe" than to "BE safe".

Peter Cunningham
Australia

[Peter Cunningham]

A quick further note.
Repetition of violence is guaranteed whilstever ideals precede reality.

When all violence is abhorred, then unchallenged violence is guaranteed.

Is it better to use a firearm to stop an assailant, or that 32 people die to uphold ideals?

"Good men need no laws, and bad men are not made better by them."
PC

[Flaco Delgado]

I do not believe guns should be banned. However there is one instance where the presence of guns was clearly not healthy for those involved.
I was animal control officer in a small town. I was driving a back road and saw a pickup parked on the shoulder. Near the pickup was a guy hiding next to a tree with his rifle held upright and close to his chest; sort of like "order arms". I stopped and asked him what was up. The guy whispered, "Somebody's seen a coyote and we're going to get him"! At that point I began to wonder a little bit. I had a gun in my truck but I knew coyotes don't hang around long. I figured this guy would wait a while and then go home after he figured there was no coyote to shoot.
I drove further along the road, about a hundred yards and out of sight of the first guy, and saw a couple more trucks pulled off onto the shoulder. I recognized the trucks and the men. They were friends of the first guy I had met. There were several guys milling around and one was walking into the woods with his rifle. (All these guys were armed.) My next thought was to wonder if the first guy I encountered knew what these guys were going to do and were doing.
I know the coyote knew what they all were doing but I wasn't as confident in the mind set of the armed men milling about. This wasn't the first time I had met people out in the woods lurking around trying to eradicate a coyote. It's open season year 'round for these cat-snatchers. I gave the coyote better than a fair chance of eluding these guys but I didn't want to bet that one of the men wouldn't survive.
I have shopped around in my mind and on the internet for possible firearms to keep in my house for protection. I used to keep a baseball bat but my thoughts about some of the characters who live around here came to mind and I figured the bat would just piss someone off and I'd be dead meat pronto. Then I thought that a sniper rifle would be the thing; you know, keep them at long distance. But then I imagined two guys coming after me and I would need a sidearm just in case. No, that wouldn't do. I would get a shotgun; pump action. Maybe sawed off to spray a better pattern since I can't see too well without my glasses.
It wasn't long before I figured the ideal gun to have is one like a friend of mine used in 'Nam. A M-79 Blooper. It was a large bore rifle which could shoot grenades or a large shell with pellets that would defoliate trees and undress people at a couple hundred yards. Cool. That was it. I'd get me a Blooper.
I still wasn't satisfied with my protection problem. I began to think if everyone I knew in town had a gun. I know most people have a car or a truck and we have problems in that area for sure. The thought of all of my neighbors having a gun began to creep me out a bit. I remember one of my pals who was building a house with me and was a terrific hunter. He bragged that he never paid money for meat. He always had venison. Well there was a gray squirrel near our building site that was a noisy little guy and my pal decided the squirrel had lived long enough. He was going home for lunch and when he came back he was going to have his gun with him to put that noisy little pest out his misery. When I got back from lunch there was the squirrel laid out neat with a hole right through him. My pal had done his "dead-eye-dick" routine. The tough part of this whole scene was my pal's attitude after I saw the squirrel and looked at him kind of "what the ...."? His look told me that he dared me to find fault with what he did.
Now when I imagine my neighbors all having guns I immediately picture my pal squinting down the barrel toward me if I ever piss him off by being too noisy or something. When I think of the gun I should have for protection I need to think of him lurking out in the woods looking for me. I mean the only people I can think of protecting myself against are my neighbors. I don't/can't imagine an army of bad dudes attacking me. The only time that I felt violent enough to protect myself was when a neighbor came to threaten me because I had turned him in for mis-treating his dogs. And then all I had was the baseball bat. It was out of reach and I talked him down and out of my house. I subsequently imagined what would have happened if I could have gotten to the bat. He would have escaped and gotten to his home and returned with his gun. Great! Now what?
I need help. What weapon should I have to protect myself from imaginary folks with horrible thoughts about me. I like the Blooper just because of the name. I don't know where to get ammo for it though.
Can anyone help me? By the way I am 68 years old and retired. I spent over 20 years in the military.
Thanks in advance for your help.

[Posse Incitatus]

Two questions:

1. How long have you thought imaginary people were out to get you?
2. What was it about hunters that made you think they were after YOU?

[Dan Simon]

It is false that guns save lives more often than doing murders. Where do you get your info from? Reality does not agree with your opinion.

[Battlehound]

It is false that laws against murder save lives, or haven't you noticed? Guns are used on the average of 2.8 million times a year to save lives. The study was done by Professor John Lott, a study whose results were also borne out by FBI crime statistics. Maybe you should check out some of these realities against your opinion.