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.
One of the words I’ve seen used quite a bit since yesterday morning is “unimaginable.” As in, the shootings at Virginia Tech were an “unimaginable nightmare.” As the madman picked his targets, there was “unimaginable horror.” When students were literally jumping from classroom windows, they were faced with an “unimaginable scenario.”
But not for National Review’s John Derbyshire. For him, it’s all perfectly imaginable. Not only that, he feels justified in offering a critique of the victims’ decision making in the midst of the crisis.
And not only that, he seems wholly unimpressed that these young people and their professors, with their lives on the line, didn’t meet his expectations.
Ana Marie Cox mocked Derbyshire for “blaming the victims … because they’re total wusses.”
If I had to choose a favorite insane statement here — like, say, if someone was holding a gun to my head — I think it’d be the idea that, “At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him.” Or, best yet: you could always try the ol’, “Shoe’s untied!” bit. Works with my theoretical mass shooting murderers all the time.
That’s not bad, but my favorite insane statement was Derbyshire’s argument that “even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage — your chances aren’t bad.”
Let’s make this perfectly clear. Students are sitting in their classroom. They hear gun shots and screaming, and the noises are getting closer. They quickly realize that their lives are in immediate danger. At this very terrorizing moment, Derbyshire thinks that these students should think to themselves, “Hey, I think I know the caliber of that firearm! Not only that, I also think that a .22 would only do minor damage to me after it’s fired into my body at close range! Millions of years of well-honed instincts are telling me to run like hell, but instead I’m inclined to run towards the well-armed madman!”
Derbyshire’s thoughts are a special kind of stupid, combing a unique blend of blame-the-victim arrogance, Monday-morning quarterbacking, unearned machismo, and a breathtaking degree of callousness.
I suppose it’s possible we’ll find a dumber response to yesterday’s tragedy, but it’s hard to see how.
Update: Nathaniel Blake at Human Events Online joins in on the fun, defending Derbyshire, and then writing that the students at Virginia Tech should feel “heartily ashamed” for not acting more bravely.