FYI
A lot of people have this strange idea that they instantly become Chuck Norris when danger rears its ugly head. In extreme danger situations, instinct to survive takes over unless you have been trained differently. Some people did attack the gunman.
Amen and pass the ammo.
Yeah, except that it took a long time for the police to get there.
Contrast the VT shootings with the recent, similar horror in Salt Lake City, UT. There, the murderer was stopped quickly because there was a man with a concealed weapon in the mall to stop him!
The emerging doctrine, while a major improvement over the previous, passive one, is still lacking somewhat in its treatment of self defense. It still favors the idea that "It’s OK. It’s going to be OK. They will be here soon.", since it doesn't encourage ordinary citizens to arm themselves and take the defense of their own lives into their own hands.
Funniest thing such doors are banned everywhere anyway, so I wonder why Norris Hall still had them? Could there be some architectural tradition group that wants it that way or what?
Half a dozen or more shoots happened AFTER the cops could have gotten to the second floor if those doors had not been chained shut.
Half a dozen or more families have a fat lawsuit coming against the university and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and any individuals who can be held accountable for placing chainable doors in that building.
Police response, Flight 93, and VT Campus are 3 completely different situations.
Police reponse : You have people who have trained togther and know how to respond as a unit. Have guns/training, ect.
Flight 93 : The passengers had time to communicate, and come up with a plan of action. And knew that if they did not act, they were going to die anyway.
VT Campus : Kids are sitting in class, thinking about whatever, and a guy come in firing off one round every 3 seconds non-stop for 9 minutues. It’s a gigantic free-for all compared to Police Reponse and Flight 93.
Is this true? I was under the impression that they waited until the shooting had pretty much stopped, like they did at Columbine. I don't want to discredit the police if I'm wrong, but this isn't the way I heard it. BTW, this is the correct police approach to this kind of situation, IMHO, since 99% of these situations are going to involve untrained madmen, not well-trained commando types who know how to effectively take cover and shoot back.
Well, no one really wants to be the first one out in front.... Even “Let’s Roll” Todd Beamer was part of a larger group. And they took some time to organize things and get a vialbe plan of action.
My thinking is unless you’ve had some very specific training (like the military, police or security), most are liable (at the first seconds) to try to shield themselves. It’s not so unheard of, really.
So, the question here is whether students are really going to get any specific training to deal with this, or if it will be considered so rare that it’s not something that should be done. I’ve already heard of some school giving some training in defense (and attack) in a situation like this — but I don’t think this is going to be the rule.
The USC students took out the man with a gun last weekend....
About two days before the VT killings, someone started a thread here at FR to promote the idea of smiling at your attacker as a means to ‘defuse’ the situation.
Needless to say, she may very well be amoung the dead.
"There is no honor in dying with your sword in its sheath."
Miyamato Musashi
1584-1645
> Shall issue concealed carry pal, that’s what it takes <
That would, of course, be ideal. I’m all for it.
But also, a barrage of books, backpacks and Blackberries from 32 shouting students/professors would have meant one or two deaths, instead of 32.
In other words, there are multiple ways to fight back that don’t require concealed carry, especially when minors are involved.