Thursday, April 19, 2007

Right-Wing Chickenhawks Blame Virginia Tech Victims For Their Own Deaths

Some on the right have decided that the students and professors at Virginia Tech acted like "wussies" when they let themselves be shot by Cho Seung-Hui during Monday's massacre, the bloodiest single murder spree in American history.

The "Blame the Victims" hit pieces first started when John Derbyshire posted this at National Review Online:

As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? 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.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.

Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.

Then Neal Boortz, right-wing radio host, decried the "wussification of America":

In the April 18 edition of his daily program notes, called Nealz Nuze and posted on his website, nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz asked: "How far have we advanced in the wussification of America?" Boortz was responding to criticism of comments he made on the April 17 broadcast of his radio show regarding the mass shooting at Virginia Tech. During that broadcast, Boortz asked: "How the hell do 25 students allow themselves to be lined up against the wall in a classroom and picked off one by one? How does that happen, when they could have rushed the gunman, the shooter, and most of them would have survived?" In his April 18 program notes, Boortz added: "It seems that standing in terror waiting for your turn to be executed was the right thing to do, and any questions as to why 25 students didn't try to rush and overpower Cho Seung-Hui are just examples of right wing maniacal bias. Surrender -- comply -- adjust. The doctrine of the left. ... Even the suggestion that young adults should actually engage in an act of self defense brings howls of protest."

What kind of psychosis does it take for the various chickenhawks in this country to be so willing to criticize victims of a massacre for not being tough enough to rush a madman with two guns who's in the middle of shooting hundreds of rounds of ammo at people?

I dunno the answer to that question, but I do know this: if a madman with a couple of guns ever walking into the National Review offices or Boortz's radio studio, the same guys condemning the VT students and staff as "wussies" would be the first guys to throw other people in front of them to save their pathetic chickenhawk asses.

Let us hope nobody ever puts these chickenhawk assholes to the test.

There was one of those nutso interviews last night, suggesting that if Texas had had a concealed carry law at the time of the very similar 1991 Killeen, TX shootings at a Luby's cafeteria, that someone would have blown the gunman away before he could have done much damage. I decided to check my memory of the incident, and I found that in spite of the fact that many of the people in the cafeteria had military training (Killeen was the home of what was then the largest military installation in the US), not one person tried to take out the gunman. Some big guy managed to break out a back window, and about half the patrons were able to escape. In spite of the fact that several of those had weapons in their cars, no one fired at the madman until two undercover cops showed up and started shooting.

In short, panic takes over in any situation where a nut is spraying bullets in a closed space, and any effective action save running for your life is virtually impossible, even for soldiers.

The same didn't hold true for flight 93 because the madmen were only armed with box cutters.
Thanks for that example from Killeen, kicksiron. It really brings home the panic and terror that takes over in such a situation.

And that's right about the Flight 93 people - box cutters are not a 9 mm. and a .22.
If there was any doubt that guys like this pander to the lowest common denominator, that doubt has just been eliminated.
No doubt, abi, no doubt. Imus is gone, but frankly, Imus never said anything even close to as offensive as Boortz.

But Boortz will undoubtedly get a show on CNN Headline News for his efforts, just like Nancy Grace and Glen Beck.
Taking the flight 93 example a little farther, keep in mind that they had like an hour or so to think about it before they did anything. Panic takes over.

My friend Roger at XDA (a right-winger) took up the issue and responded truthfully.

"I'd probably just stand there in panic and get shot."

Most of the rest of us would too, despite what "we'd like to think."
Good point about the time frame on Flight 93. They knew what was going to happen (they had cell phones), they knew there was no hope for survival, they decided to take the terrorists down with them (and very, very bravely so.)

I'm glad to hear that XDA said what he said. So did J-Pod at National Review Online. I just can't understand anybody who wants to blame these victims for this.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?