The wussifying of America

[russ 1]

Maybe so, but 30 people is way too many for a single person to kill. If other students

had guns, he would have been neutralised much sooner.

Living in Florida, my University is one the the very few places that I can not carry a gun. I don't think that it is a coincidence that "Gun Free" zones are so often the sites of these tragedies in America. Such shootings never seem to happen at gun shows or target ranges.

These disasters are not new. The worst was in 1927, and killed 45. No guns were used.

American Universities are still very safe places. Students face greater risks from driving than anything else.

[Robor007 0]

Would you two get over yourselves or take it to PM? Becauuse I don't care what kinda fancy degrees you got after your name, you're both looking like Special Olympics candidates.

I know it's old and somewhat in bad taste but it still rings true...

[slim 1,533]

The OP is back, and no, I didn't "post and run"; I have a job, and at that job I don't have a computer to sit on all day and add comments on Off Topic threads. (I wish I did, I rather enjoy this stuff!) I didn't check this forum again until a little bit ago, and was VERY surprised to see that it's now an 11 page thread, even if there was a lot of popcorn.

To clarify:

First- The people that took action, any action, are "heroes" and should be applauded. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting that they should've "went all Jack Bauer" on a gunman, I was suggesting that anytime there are several hundred people in a building facing a threat from ONE man, that threat should dissipate more quickly than what it did.

Second- To say people are wussies because they don't storm a gunman is not what I said in my post. Please re-read it if you forgot by now. What I was trying to imply is that the conditioned response in America has become to cower in the face of violence and wait for the authorities to take action and make it right. This is probably due more to litigation or the fear of litigation and lawsuits than to fear for ones own safety and/or well-being. That is not a uniquely American trait, and the "civilizing" of the Western and developing world mirrors this. The more "civil" a society becomes, the more apt they are to do nothing in the face of impending death at the hands of a crazy person, and to simply accept their fate instead of facing violence with more violence.

Third- For the "violence = more violence" folks out there.... you're right. But when violence comes to you, you don't defeat it by "playing dead" or saying "I love you, please don't shoot me." When a deranged and crazy gunman enters a room and starts killing people for no reason, the only things that are going to stop him from shooting more people are a lack of ammunition, someone (or himself) shooting him, or having the guns physically taken away from him. I am implying in my OP that here in America, and now if you want to add Europe or another "developed" country, even Russia, although the N'ord Ost seige was a hostage/barricaded suspects situation... completely different than a single gunman shooting everyone in front of him, but I'll go ahead and count Russia too, we as a society have become more accepting of "doing nothing" in the hopes of surviving than taking action to counter a threat because "violence is bad" and countering violence with violence, even to protect our own lives and the lives of others is held to such a dispicable standard as the original violence in the first place.

It's like we almost don't want to accept the fact that we're capable of killing another human being.

We are. Life and death is a daily thing. People die from cancer, in car crashes, etc., by the hundreds of thousands every day. Do they choose to die like this? Yes, and no. Some people make good decisions and some make bad decisions and they ultimately lead to an end. However, what I'm trying to say here, and the purpose of the original post is that we need to start conditioning ourselves to accept the fact that when something bad happens to us our those around us, sometimes someone needs to step up and do something bad right back.... and that doesn't make them a bad person. It doesn't make them a hero, and it doesn't make them a wussy either. What it does make them is someone that will not accept being hurt or killed simply because they're afraid of what other people might think about them afterward.

We have a conditioned response to NOT meet violence with more violence. That's what needs to change.

It's not Jack Bauer, it's not warmongering, it's COMMON SENSE!

It's just sad that we're so worried about being the one that gets in trouble, or the one that "does something violent to someone" that we WILL NOT do it, and ultimately, it costs more lives.

People that do violent things to other people do them because either they're crazy, or because they can. If you take away their probablity of "successful violence" and add a THREAT back to them, their inclination to commit violent acts decreases significantly. If someone is just plain crazy, or is planning on dying anyway (as was the gunman in VA and the 19 hijackers) the only way to combat that threat is to completely overcome them with a more violent action.... and to do it before they can effectively complete their objective.

Our mentality towards violence needs to change. Violence exists. We need to acknowledge this first, and then hold those accountable that cause the violence, not the ones that take action to stop it. Then and only then will our trained responses change.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

bro slim,

i think i understand what you are trying to say. you may have some valid points. but, i am failing to understand if what you wrote was meant to say that someone in VT shouild have done something differently to stop this guy. or is your statement/position moer a general observation on americas' aversion to personal viloence?

Daniel

:energetic:

[Caladan 19]

I think you need to read the account of the VA Tech shootings, because you keep saying 'I'm not talking about them, but.... they're an example of our victim culture.' People *did* take action. Many of them died doing so. You seem to be equating "the gunman killed 32" with "everyone who died must not have fought." There was no conditioned response to cower except in the rooms where 90% of the victims died in the first 90 seconds, and in those rooms, cowering and playing dead until the gunman left was what saved the students' lives. You want to tell the kid who survived because his dead friend fell on top of him, covering him in blood and tissue, that he made a mistake in staying down? Want to tell his mother that?

It's only in the movies where the hero always survives. It's only in video games where you get a do-over and a second life if your brave action fails. There was lots of action and acts of heroism. What is this, the will to power? If you refuse to accept being a victim, you will prevail? Sometimes you can refuse to be the victim and still die. It would be nice to think otherwise, that all the students or any victim had to do was have the will to fight, but the will to fight isn't bulletproof.

I see nothing in the VATech attacks that suggests that America has become a nation of wusses, but a lot of responses that suggest that America's become a nation of Walter Mittys.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Our mentality towards violence needs to change.

Out of curiosity I wonder how you actually see this happening?

I'm also a little confused about why you see this "wussification" process as something new.

We don't live in the middle-ages, and crime statistics aside people don't live with the daily threat of being killed, having your house burned to the ground and your family being sold off into slavery. Violence exists, sure - but it isn't a day to day issue for many people - it isn't for me, nor do I really want it to be. So I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say in a practical sense, considering that most of the reason that people clam up in extreme situations is because they're afraid. Fear being the reason that got you shot in WW1 for refusing to "go over the top".

If you want people become hardened to violence - you kind of have to experience it on a day to day basis, and lets face it - there are places in the world like that. I would not want to live there, nor do I think they much resemble the US.

[Caladan 19]

He could move to Baghdad. Harden himself up. I think the death toll for the past three days is over 200. Plenty of opportunities to match violence with violence.

[slim 1,533]

bro slim,

i think i understand what you are trying to say. you may have some valid points. but, i am failing to understand if what you wrote was meant to say that someone in VT shouild have done something differently to stop this guy. or is your statement/position moer a general observation on americas' aversion to personal viloence?

Daniel

:energetic:

A general observation on America's aversion to personal violence. Exactly what I'm going for. In an individual scenario, there is no "right or wrong" way to handle something, and as everyone knows, you DON'T know what you're going to do. All I'm suggesting is that if we were trained to take quick and decisive action to counter a threat instead of "hide" from it, maybe we would fare better in situations like this.

There was no conditioned response to cower except in the rooms where 90% of the victims died in the first 90 seconds, and in those rooms, cowering and playing dead until the gunman left was what saved the students' lives. You want to tell the kid who survived because his dead friend fell on top of him, covering him in blood and tissue, that he made a mistake in staying down? Want to tell his mother that?

Exactly my point.

90 seconds is FOREVER in a shooting. The gunman in this incident had two pistols. He had less bullets than people that were there and had to reload several times.

That said, I'm not arguing that anyone did anything right or wrong. People do what they must, especially in these scenarios. And someone that "stayed down" because their dead friend fell on top of them may have been right to do so. However, had they gotten up after the gunman ran out of bullets or moved on to the next classroom, and actually went after the gunman, maybe they could've saved some more of their friends. But, here in America, that's not right. That only happens in the movies. We're better off to run to safety and let the cops handle it. After all, we're not Jack Bauer.

I am arguing that if we had a general will to fight instead of to "take cover" we may fare better in situations like this.

Once again, I'm not saying they should've attacked the gunman, I'm saying a general change in our mentality from "fleeing" violence to "confronting" it with more oppresive violence is what will possibly lead us to fare better in situations like this.

[almaty 19]

If you want people become hardened to violence - you kind of have to experience it on a day to day basis, and lets face it - there are places in the world like that. I would not want to live there, nor do I think they much resemble the US.

you can find places like that in ever city in america...

just go out late at night and walk around. you get some action

[russ 1]

I think that slim is speaking of society in general, and his argument is quite rational.

The violence of that mad man in Virginia truly makes me sick to my stomach. This was a sad and senseless crime, almost beyond comprehension. I'm disgusted by everything I hear about it.

One reason for Slim's observations may be this:

Self defense is a dangerous thing here, first an foremost for the threat of litigation. Even in Florida where I live, reasonable legal advice has been to avoid defending yourself whenever possible. This, despite our new and nationally unpopular "stand your ground" law. (You do not have a duty to retreat in Florida even outside your home, if attacked or in the presence of a forcible felony, you may use deadly force).

To be honest, in anything short of a VT scenario, I would run the other way and call the police. This includes seeing any type of violent assualt I can imagine.

The reality here is that these self defense laws are largely irrelevant to most people. Most of the murders and assualts I read about are either domestic in nature, or related to drugs. The situations we debate so frequently are often quite rare in practice, which may be why they are such events in the news.

The violent crimes which happen here every day have much harder causes to explain. Rather than a mad man to blame, they are symptoms of economic, education, and unhealthy family lives.

bro slim,

i think i understand what you are trying to say. you may have some valid points. but, i am failing to understand if what you wrote was meant to say that someone in VT shouild have done something differently to stop this guy. or is your statement/position moer a general observation on americas' aversion to personal viloence?

Daniel

:energetic:

[russ 1]

I think that all of us wish that we had a solution to end violence, both in the US and in Iraq.

I don't know that anyone has a good answer, but Slim's questions seem both healthy and on-topic. We are all thinking of ways to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

He could move to Baghdad. Harden himself up. I think the death toll for the past three days is over 200. Plenty of opportunities to match violence with violence.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh that's tosh - its not about 'fear of litigation' that makes people hesitant to confront violence - its plain fear. Fear being a natural human response...

I've not had a gun shoved in my face or a knife at my throat - but if I had and you questioned why I hadn't "done anything", I'd tell you exactly where stick it!

Its easy to tell others what they 'should do' from the hindsight of a nice comfy chair - another thing to face it directly.

Edited April 19, 2007 by erekose

[Caladan 19]

Again, slim, read some of the coverage. Most *didn't* cower. Many barricaded the door, and in one room, it saved everyone in it. Had the kid decided to let the gunman in to play the hero, chances are his whole class would have got a bullet. At least two tried to rush the gunman. They died. I think it was brave of them to rush the gunman; but I don't think doing so is mandatory or always advisable.

I guess I'm just unhappy that you're taking the fact that many died as evidence that they just cowered when the stories really seem to be to the contrary. You want them to fight back. They did. It's not good enough for you, though, because they died. You've had three days to think about it; one kid had two seconds.

You know, after his classmate's head exploded on him.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

bro slim,

how about looking at it like this. (and i am "thinking" off the seat of my pants here):

most ppl (anywhere really) in the USA are civilians. and as civilians, simply aren't prepared to deal with this kind of situation.

within (most places really) the USA, there are gorups (police/military/etc) that are trained to handle these kind of situations and deal with them quite well.

so maybe it is unrealistic to have a population ready to "deal" with these kinds of situations.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you can find places like that in ever city in america...

just go out late at night and walk around. you get some action

Luckily for me I don't live in Newark, or South LA