April 20, 2007

Conservatives unhinged--again

Tony, in an aptly named post ("Can I scream now?") points to the Conservative Voice where some tool named Brooks Mick suggests that the students should have rushed the shooter. And he isn't the only one. John Derbyshire at the NRO said the same thing:
Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

Idiocy, evidently, rules among the hard core right where the students are to blame for not reenacting some movie they saw somewhere.

Ah, but it isn't just conservative columnists, but also the former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Paige Patterson. I remember him fondly from his role in the conservative takeover of that convention, but according to sources, he echoes the same nonesense in a freaking chapel message! (H/t Big Daddy Weave):
"“Now if you’re a male student, will you just lift your hand for a moment so I can see you? Thank you for that commitment. God forbid that anything happen like this here, but each of you that just raised your hand said, ‘Never be more than two or three shots before I’m on him. Doesn’t matter how many of us he takes out. ‘ See, all you had to do was have six or eight rush him right at that time, and thirty-two people wouldn’t have died. Now folks, let’s make up our minds. I know we live in America where nobody gets involved in anybody else’s situation. That shall not be the rule here. Does everybody understand? You say, well I may be shot. Well, yeah, you may. Are you saved? You’re going to heaven. You know, it’s better than earth . . . Now one more time, how many male students are there? I’m counting on you.”"

Tony wants to scream. I feel rather numb. Ten dollars says that all of these people are big war supporters--probably big fans of John Wayne movies, and still believe that the Duke, Reagan, and W are all "cowboy heroes."

I have been in a lengthy discussion about the 1950s and nostalgia. I argue that most of what people imagine about that decade has been learned from film and television and then shrouded in nostalgia. It has become the dominant goal for traditional values, etc. For many, this has become their reality.

Reading Paige Patterson, I am reminded that these cultural myths have real consequences. Just as many young men went off to Vietnam thinking war was a John Wayne movie, we still have many viewing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan through the same lens. Their "reality" means that students should have rushed an armed shooter wearing a vest. Their "reality" leads to a President saying "bring it on." And the fact that religious conservatives romanticize war just makes me want to cry.

7 comments:

Tony said...

I think what gets me even more about this is the timing.

And why the "blame the victim" mentality?

The comment thread of the conservative voice is equally disturbing. Second Amendment forever...have we raised a brood of national passive wimps...the boy who saved his own life by wrapping an electrical cord around his leg is not to be lauded because he only saved his life...and of course, the greatest generation language just melds so beautifully with gun law rhetoric.

Oh! And the fact that we need to discuss Tom Clancy novels and invoke creative fiction as national policy just, well...

{Tony screaming...}

Streak said...

Absolutely, Tony, but take a look at Big Daddy Weave's post on it. Several commenters already and the other two, besides me, of course, are defending Patterson. Or maybe you shouldn't take a look....

Anonymous said...

I don't read the Conservative Voice, nor will I. I have enough other blogs and boards to take up my time. I am sure that it will come as no surprise that I have an interest in the 2nd Amendment and firearms (I am a part time instructot for pistol and personal protection).

I would like to comment on this, but I need to run a few errands first. Let me say that Derbyshire and Patterson are idiots and should be ashamed of themselves for making such moronic statements.

P M Prescott said...

I weep along with you. I doubt anyone could say for certain what they would do in a situation like this until they are in it. When that happens all thoughts of being like Bruce Willis in Die Hard evaporate into the fantasy they are and reality becomes quite differrent.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak- Something about the cases in your post seems strangely familiar, especially the Patterson part. Hmmmm, older white guy admonishing group of aged "20-something" young men to take a bullet for the greater good while at the same time knowing he'll never face the same risk......... Nah, can't figure out where I've heard this before. Later-BB

Anonymous said...

I hang out on a few national and state boards that discuss firearm's issues. This includes politics, laws, training, hunting, and firearms. There are a fairly wide range of people that post, in terms of political leanings, etc., though a slight majority can be said to be conservative. Obviously, what happened at VT has been the topic of numerous threads. I wish I could say that the posters have been thoughtful and intelligent, but like any open forum, there are going to be a fair share of dummies (for lack of a better word).

Unfortunately, there have been threads asking whether the students should have "resisted more." There have been some that have suggested that they were too passive and have said what they would have done.

I have not been surprised by the amount of idiotic discussions that have surrounded this incident. I also think it is irresponsible to theorize on what should have happened when we clearly do not have the fatcs. I also think that blaming the victim is disrespectful. I'd like to share a response that one of the long time poster on one of the boards made. He is an attorney from Alaska:

"I've just about had enough of this bravo sierra. Boyos, if someone comes in and starts shooting at you with a firearm you either get to cover or you DIE. Life isn't like the movies, and what you call "cowardice" is common sense. An unarmed attack on a motivated gunman is suicide.

YOU HEAR THAT SHOOTING, YOU GET TO G-D COVER OR YOU GET THE HELL OUT!! Are you people really so ignorant? Did you grow up watching too many "A Team" episodes? Unarmed charges against a guy pumping bullets into anything that moves WILL get you killed. It happens over and over again, from the Luby's shooting to the most recent one. An opportunity to move in may present itself, or it may not. But the assumption that anyone with a pair should rush to the gunfire is dangerously idiotic. Ron Edwards, the VP of Bethel High, was a big tough guy. He thought he'd go out into the hall and man handle the shotgun from Evan Ramsey. Well as I got to hear blow-by-blow during the depos in that civil suit, all Edwards got for his courage was a slug through his innards and death. THAT is what good old American courage will get you. Forget about it. The only hope you have of surviving, let alone getting the edge on a punk like that, is to be even more ruthless and sneaky than he is."

Reading the comments from people that suggest rushing the attacker suggest that they know very little about what to do in a situation like at VT. It is difficult to predict how you will react. We are talking about a buch of young adults with no kind of training. Fleeing, if possible, is the best course of action. If you fight back, you do so from a position of strength, not by rushing a person head-on. Like the person I quoted said, you get to cover or you die.

I have yet to see any of the reputable traininers I know comment on what people should have done. The people advocating rushing the shooter are idiots, blowhards, and wwhat we like to call on the forums, keyboard kommandos.

Streak said...

Well said, Steve. These people are idiots. Sorry for the Paige Patterson fans out there, but come on!

I hate to say it, but Patterson's comments also reminded me of the language supposedly on the other side where young men are urged to lose their lives because they will be rewarded in some afterlife.