Victim-bashing, Right-wing Nutcase Answers Stupid Liberal Question

So many folks have begun saying aloud what I have been thinking myself, that a pattern of squishy-left responses has become clear. When anyone dares ascribe cowardice to victims (a la Virginia Tech) who fail to fight back, the retort is almost always “What do you know about it, you keyboard warrior? If you’re such a big man why don’t you go to Iraq and fight terrorists? Until it happens to you, you can’t possibly know how you’d react, so how dare you blame the victims?”

I think I’ll answer that, actually.

What would I do? I would respond with maturity, fortitude and do whatever was required. If, for example, I was accosted on the street by a mugger with a gun who declares "Your money or your life," I would dutifully hand over my wallet and let him be on his way. I would obtain as best a description as I could, then call the police and cancel my credit cards. Rushing my attacker in this case could escalate a non-lethal situation into one where bullets would be flying and any number of people could get killed. Neither my wallet nor my XY vanity is worth it.

Not so with other situations, however. In the case of school shootings, we are all well acquainted with the Modus Operandi: a suicidal maniac, armed to the teeth, will calmly roam the hallways killing as many people as he can until he is either stopped or runs out of bullets, save one, which he will then use on himself. He will, in other words, continue killing for as long as he is permitted by others to do so. Liberals may not like to hear this inconvenient truth, but an obligation falls to other human beings in the area, through no fault of theirs, to actually do something about it. In every situation these victims (those being shot at right now) and potential victims (those who will be shot next) have a choice to make. They can flee, defend or attack. All are appropriate reactions depending on the tactical situation at hand. Three guys barricading a classroom to save twenty others may be a good move in one area of engagement. Five guys rushing the attacker after he passes your doorway, or when he reloads or is firing in another direction, would have also been a good idea at many points. Lining up like cattle while he shoots you one by one will always be a very poor tactical choice. It is called "cowardice".

Please don’t misunderstand me: everyone, and I mean everyone, is entitled to freeze up for a few moments – to be temporarily overwhelmed by disbelief or frozen by shock and terror. As the moments pass and the disbelief fades, however, you will have to make choices about your behaviour – and these you can control. You will be held accountable for them in any event.

This notion about having to have special training or leaving it to the professionals in law enforcement is nonsense. Before 13 year old Marian Fisher was executed by her school shooter, she asked to be shot first so as to protect the younger children. Maybe the shooter would run out of bullets, leaving the youngest to survive, or may be he would have a change of heart after killing her, she must have thought. This child knew a lot more about courage than a lot of the students at Virginia Tech.

Airplane hijackings are, of course, another classic example where the rules are now universally understood by passengers everywhere: If the hijackers get control of the plane, you and lots of other people on the ground will die. There are, depending on the size of the aircraft, always somewhere between 60 and 300 passengers. Ever if there are dozens of well armed hijackers, they don’t stand a chance of getting control of that aircraft if everyone leaps out of their seat and rushes them. I sincerely doubt that there is a single person who would support the idea of going along for a final ride on Jihad Air, just so they could live long enough to see a national monument or F-14 up close. In this tactical situation, cowardice is simply no longer an option.

We are left, really, with simple math:

CRIME = f(CRIMINAL)(VICTIM).

Every single crime requires two things: a perpetrator and a victim. If either of those factors is absent, a crime will not occur. Victims are as much part of this equation as the suspect, and like it or not will therefore have a say in the outcome. This say means making a choice.

I’ve made mine. What’s yours?

PS: I have deliberately left the whole Christian perspective aside, as my post deals with universal morality and realities. For those asking WWJD however, you just have to read Kathy’s take:

Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend."

That stupid Jesus guy left out all the stuff about being "properly trained first", the differences between this or that caliber gun, and following our "natural instincts".

What a loser, huh?

Are there even any real men left anymore?

Kathy’s point is well taken; I call them Grief Groupies (or GGs for short) – just a bunch of misery-loving, misguided humanity wallowing in the grief of others to give their empty, pathetic lives some fleeting meaning. Get. A. Life.

One question among many unanswered ones: How did over 50 people get shot without anyone taking the shooter down? Did everyone just hurtle themselves out windows and hide under desks? Would there be over 50 shot and 30 dead if after 2 or 3 victims a few guys with actual testicles rushed the shooter? Flight 93? Anyone? Anyone…?

Seditious cowards, the lot of them. They castrated a once proud nation with twinkles in their eyes, and treason in their souls. Wall. Against. Put. Shot.

Last real man get the lights on your way out….