«

Quote of the Moment: Now They’re Just Trolling Us

It’s hard not to join in the dogpile on Megan McArdle, when she writes a windy article about the recent school shooting highlighting everything that just won’t work to stop gun violence, then ends with this:

I’d also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.

I can’t believe someone would actually advocate a bumrush as a way to stop school shootings. She’s got to be screwing with us.

  • Derfington Herfingworth, Esq.

    And yet she’s right. Such rushing of killers has stopped several high profile attempted killings.

    • Elemenope

      It’s true. Standard training is “rush a gun, run from a knife”. It works better if the gun is not readied, but still, it’s more effective on balance than trying to run.

      Probably not the best advice for six-year-olds, though.

      • Michael

        The advice should probably be that the adults should rush the shooter while the children–who are more often the intended targets–should hie if possible.

        But really, there is no need to educate kids on the best way to survive a school shooting. They shouldn’t exist in the first place.

        • Don Gwinn

          Good point. That’s why my school doesn’t do fire drills. There shouldn’t be a structure fire in a school in the first place.

          • Keith Collyer

            that is a dumb comment. i’ll leave you to work out why

            • dfghdfgh

              No, it isn’t. You can claim their shouldn’t be school shootings all you want, but the fact is, there are, just like there are sometimes fires, floods, or other dangerous conditions.

              NO law or regulation passed will stop them (short of abolishing schools completely.)

              Schools should absolutely have security drills, and there is nothing wrong with being prepared and learning how to survive any number of adverse circumstances, no matter the age. Certainly, what is appropriate preparedness for a 6 year old is going to vary from that for a 16 year old, but sticking your head in the sand and blaming “evil guns” and delusionally thinking that if guns are illegal criminals wont be able to get them, isn’t going to make them go away.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              Except nobody thinks that and you’re making stuff up because you are a delusional gun nut who cares more about playing with noisy toys than taking steps to gradually make gun violence less and less likely.

          • Michael

            School fires are relatively common. School shootings are extraordinarily rare. It’s the difference between putting a smoke alarm in your house and putting a meteor shield over it. Both effectively protect against rare events, but only one is extremely fucking stupid.

        • Artor

          “Really, there is no need to educate teenagers about sex. They shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
          Michael, do you think you might need to reconsider the logic of that statement?

        • dfghdfgh

          Just imagine if one of the responsible adults at the school had had quick access to a gun, as well as proper training on its use..

          Instead of confronting the shooter unarmed, they could have quickly retreated to wherever the gun was stored, loaded it, and come out and taken the guy down (maybe from behind as he walked down the hall.)

          • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

            Just imagine if a kid managed to get into the gun cabinet, or a responsible adult didn’t feel comfortable killing another human being, or they missed and hit a student or other teacher… Or imagine that assault weapons and fire enough rounds to kill two dozen people faster than you can unlock a cabinet. Wait, you don’t have to fantasize about that one.

          • Custador

            One of the “responsible” adults at that school DID have easy access to guns, you stupid fuck. Know what happened? Her son stole them, killed her with one of them, and then used them to murder 27 more people. Jesus tittyfucking Christ I am so SICK of retards like you…

            • Custador

              In fact, do you know what dickheads like this REALLY mean when they say “imagine if one of the responsible adults at the school had had quick access to a gun”? They mean “ONOES! Don’t take away the slightest sliver of a chance that one day I might be a Hollywood Hero (TM) by whipping out my penis substitu… Er, I mean, my gun, and saving the day from an Evil Doer!!111!!1!!!1!!11!!ELEVENTY!!1″

            • dfghdfgh

              Apparently she wasn’t as responsible as you thought she was. And she wasn’t AT the school, moron.

              “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed”
              Criminals prefer unarmed victims – Dictators prefer unarmed citizens.

              No law you can make will prevent tragedies – they happen.

              Given a choice between being in a room with 25 people, all strangers to each other, and all of them were armed, or none of them were armed, having ALL of them armed is a LOT safer than none. When’s the last time you heard of a violent wacko committing a mass murder at a gun show or similar even where all the potential victims were well armed? Oh right, never.

              For the record, I dont even own a gun.

            • Custador

              “Apparently she wasn’t as responsible as…”

              No, she wasn’t – And neither are tens of thousands of other gun owners, which is why the rest of us (including RESPONSIBLE gun owners) need to be protected from them with legislation. Licenses, training, registration, the threat of having your weapons removed if you are irresponsible, mandatory secure storage for both weapons and ammo. None of these things are onerous, yet people like the NRA fight them. Arseholes, frankly.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              Getting murdered by her own son doesn’t make her an irresponsible gun owner and calling other people moron doesn’t make you not one. You don’t seem at all capable of understanding that sometimes people can kill somebody and/or steal their keys or their weapon. You are unhinged. Get help, before you harm somebody with a brain.

              To answer your question about somebody committing mass murder when surrounded by armed people (not to mention well trained), I’m going to have to direct you to Fort Hood, Texas. I’m sure you’ll come back with some lame rationalization in the form of a hostile, knee-jerk reaction because you have a gun fetish that is so engrained you cannot conceive of having a civil conversation with somebody who thinks differently about them, and you’ll call me dumbass or moron again to punctuate your ill-thought out objection, but that in and of itself demonstrates exactly why I don’t want to be in a room with 25 armed people. A good portion of them are liable to be reactionary and prone to hostility at the drop of a hat, and I don’t want to have a discussion with somebody who has a short fuse and a death remote in their pocket.

              And, for the record, you duplicitous fool, try quoting the second amendment in full if you’re going to try to use it to justify sitting on your hands and letting mass murders continue to occur on a scale that can be mitigated:

              “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

              You tell me how a woman filling her home with assault weapons is part of a well regulated militia. Start by looking up ‘regulated’ in a dictionary.

            • Yoav

              Given a choice between being in a room with 25 people, all strangers to each other, and all of them were armed, or none of them were armed, having ALL of them armed is a LOT safer than none.

              A bunch of panicked, poorly trained people shooting in a crowded room, there’s no way that can end badly.

            • Michael

              John, I agree with you in principle, but the Fort Hood shooting is not as good an example as you might think. Nobody but the shooter was armed in the room, and the first (civilian) policewoman to arrive was alone and armed only with a 9 mm. The first armed military policeman to arrive shot, disarmed, and cuffed Hasan.

              Not that a school shooting involving armed teachers wouldn’t have gone far worse.

            • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

              @Michael – that’s part of my point. Even on a military base, trained soldiers with firearms nearby require time to actually get them and bring them to bear, and in that space of time, however short, a good number can be slaughtered because these weapons fire really, really fast. This fantasy that if only we had more guns stashed around schools or teachers packing heat completely ignores that.

            • Michael

              Well if some of the teachers literally had loaded pistols holstered when the shooting started, you would expect at least one to be able to pull out their gun, switch off the safety, and shoot and kill Lanza.

              Though I admit even then there is no guarantee, and I find it hard to believe anybody would feel comfortable sending first graders to a class in which the teacher is carrying a loaded firearm at all times.

            • Kodie

              I think that would be a matter of culture. Some cultures like the guns and would assume the teacher knew how to use it. Some cultures think it’s inappropriate for a teacher to pack while not thinking twice about their children’s safety in the company of a police officer or some security guards. It is a difference in training though – at least for police. Police will be trained to be police. How would teachers be trained to defend a classroom? I think without a lot of training, it concerns me of cases like other self-defense. If someone has been killed, it’s another whole bureaucratic obstacle to clear the teacher for reacting. That pretty much means a would-be shooter would have to shoot someone, or is it enough to show up at the classroom door with a gun aimed at people?

              I am going by tv, which is always more dramatic and inaccurate, but do police fire their guns at people who are just holding a gun? On tv, they seem to try to talk to them first to avoid the more drastic outcome and only shoot if they have to. And then what if, and I base this more off of news stories, what if it’s not a gunman but someone holding something that only looks like a gun out of the corner of your eye? In the interest of protecting children, it’s probably better to shoot a gunman before he has a chance to aim his weapon, but not shoot at all a person holding an umbrella if you had to react quickly before they shot any kids with their umbrella.

              It might be better to build schools with adjoining rooms so classrooms aren’t traps where people are hiding in the closet because there’s nowhere else to go. I don’t think arming teachers is the best idea or the worst idea. I’m saying if it was that way, if they were trained, we could get used to it, and it wouldn’t be different than police carrying guns. But I don’t really think it’s the best idea at all. It’s tragic that the children and their teachers died, but I don’t think the problem warrants a drastic solution like arming teachers. Guns seems like the idea when people don’t have a good idea, i.e. murderers don’t seem to explore all their options first either.

      • The Vicar

        Um, actually, standard training (vide the D.H.S.) is to run from both guns and knives if you have any chance to do so, and only to rush shooters if you have absolutely no choice.

        Not hard to see why: in most plausible scenarios a semiautomatic weapon is going to let the shooter kill people faster than they can rush towards him. Unless you’re postulating that the killer who is planning a surprise mass shooting is going to stand with a bunch of people behind him, or start off by shooting at people who are within one or two feet, or use weapons with a significant reload time. Then, sure, rush if you have the courage. But if you’re starting 20 feet away, in the killer’s field of sight, and he doesn’t have to pause to shoot you? Rushing is just throwing your life away.

        • Elemenope

          Um, actually, standard training (vide the D.H.S.) is to run from both guns and knives if you have any chance to do so, and only to rush shooters if you have absolutely no choice.

          I thought that part in bold was obvious enough to not spell out. Obviously it’s better to be able to escape entirely. The point of self-defense advice is to know what to do if you can’t just make an easy escape. Generally, if your assailant has a knife he or she must close the distance before being able to do harm, where the same is not true with a gun, hence the desperation rule. So long as you can maintain distance, you’re pretty safe from a knife, whereas your only hope, however slight it might be, with a gun assailant, is to rush ‘em.

          By the way, you’re basically incorrect about the effectiveness of semiautomatic weapons in handling multiple advancing targets. Unless you have a truly absurd amount of training and skill and luck, you will be overborne by a bum-rush unless they start quite far away and most or all are in a narrow horizontal arc. Even if you manage to hit all the targets, there is no guarantee of being able to disable them enough to prevent them from being immediate threats; if you’re talking about a rifle, switching targets in close quarters is very difficult, whereas if you’re talking about a pistol, weapon accuracy is an issue.

          • Reginald Selkirk

            You take out a machine gun nest with a hand grenade. I’ve seen all the movies, and that’s the way it is done.

            • Elemenope

              “Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don’t you think?”

  • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

    Six and seven year olds running head-on into a guy with an assault carbine is an image that ran through this woman’s head as she tried to think of a justification for not considering any form of tighter gun-control legislation. I don’t think we can really say anything more.

    • dfghdfgh

      No, the ADULTS, not the kids, dumbass.

      • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

        “if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun”

        Grow up, learn to read, and try again.

  • http://cranialhyperossification.blogspot.com GDad

    I think she doesn’t have a strong grasp of reality. Back in the days when these people just stood in the public parks and shouted at passersby, we didn’t hear much about them, because they reached a relatively small audience. Thanks a lot, Internet.

    • Sunny Day

      OTOH, I appreciate people like her speaking her mind. It lets me identify the crazies and take what steps I can to minimize the impact they have on my life and others.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    I believe that is how the principal and school psychologist at Sandy Hook died.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea…

    “I would like to encourage dozens of people to die for my unevidenced brain fart.”

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Lanza went to the school with two handguns and a commonly used rifle.

    That is misleading. While this semi-automatic military style rifle i s commonly used in spree killings, it is not commonly used for any legitimate purpose, such as hunting.

  • Apathostic

    Okay, McArdle, let’s see you run at a guy with a loaded semi-automatic, then tell me six-year-olds can do it.

  • Cody

    As someone trained in civilian defense and a self defense instructor, gun owner, etc. i’d like to add that this is far complex than this would appear. There are many variable to consider.

    Firstly one should not give broadcast advice like (‘rush shooters’), this advice without training is foolish. In many cases rushing a shooter is the right thing to do, but the key is that this is part of an educational process not someone advising everyone to run towards gunfire.

    This gentleman in this video is knowledgeable on the subject and does relevant training. Thought some of you might be interested.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r2tIeRUbRHw#!

    Peaceful, protected and god-free,

  • Paul Falcone

    People should actually read the article before criticizing it. And this website should not run one, out of context comment from it.

    • Reginald Selkirk

      You’re new on The Internet, aren’t you?

  • vasaroti

    Throw your Java textbooks at the gunman.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X