February 19, 2008
Ex-FBI agent: Rape victims should lay there and take it
An ex-FBI agent says that rape victims run a serious risk of "escalating the violence" if they resist their attackers, advising them to not fight back and wait for the police to come to their rescue.
Just lay there and take it, ladies. Why make a bad situation worse by adding to the violence?
Did that make you spit up your coffee?
Good. It should, even if I've altered the actual quote just a bit to make a point.
The latest round of campus shootings hit close to home this past week, with a homicidal teen opening fire on a campus in a Ventura County middleschool, executing a classmate in coldblood. Add this to the shootings on a Chicago-area college campus, where a lunatic went off his meds and opened fire on a bunch of fellow students with a shotgun, and it's time for more navel gazing.
Some with a legal bent are suggesting that landlords and politicians who create so-called gun-free zones -- otherwise known as target-rich environments -- should be held strictly liable for the safety of the customers/students therein. Deny people the means of self-defense and you've created an obligation and responsibility for their safety.
Fail in that duty and you should pay.
And pay and pay and pay.
The other response, less litigious, is to allow concealed carry by otherwise eligible adults, the theory being that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
When the Illinois shooter stood on the stage, blasting double-aught buckshot into the seats -- and his classmates -- all they could do was cower and pray -- or run away. Had there been even one person carrying a concealed weapon, there was at least a chance that the killer could be stopped before he'd killed his fill.
Now, I know the usual bleating lament of the kumbyah sheeple, "Me no like guns! Guns bad! Guns scawy! Guns in school make mess in my britches."
It's hard to argue with this fact: gun-free zones have been a spectacular failure, preventing only those who like following the law from bringing weapons into areas where the firearms are Verboten! How many times do we need to see people murdered in areas where they've been told they cannot, must not act to protect themselves?
What about that bleating lament -- that guns in schools somehow corrupt the learning environment, poisoning the minds of our youth, turn edimicators into terminators?
Well, first let me say that when it comes to the health and welfare of the children dropped off at school each day, I'm far more concerned about the lead poisoning they're already getting at the hands of homicidal sociopaths, people who don't give a damn about rules and regulations -- just putting a bullet into the brains of those whom they deem the enemy.
Furthermore, when dealing with the fantasy-based crowd, I find it helpful to cite to the real world -- strange and exotic 'though it might be.
The Israelis suffered a number of attacks by Arab terrorists in the 1970s and early 1980s on schools, the terrorists bursting in on the unarmed teachers and their terrified wards, then opening fire with automatic weapons and lobbing grenades.
Unwilling to tolerate schools becoming designated killing fields, Israelis responded by stationing armed guards (often parents volunteering for the duty) at nearly all schools -- and arming teachers -- the ultimate first line of defense.
In the years since, there has been no successful, large-scale massacre at any Israeli school; between the guards and the teachers, the would-be attackers always end up being rather effective lead catchers.
Of course, this course of action requires a proactive mindset, one where "think of the children!" translates into something other than "do nothing but think of the children, then mourn for the children."
Which brings me to that ex-FBI agent I started talking about. Check out what he thinks we ought to do to make our schools safe, in an article from the local fishrap, The Ventura County Star.
Vincent Wincelowicz, a retired FBI official who is now a board member of the Denver-based Foundation for the Prevention of School Violence, said it's impossible to make schools totally safe.
"If someone is determined to get a gun on campus to shoot others, they will find a way," Wincelowicz said. Schools need to focus on finding and helping troubled students before they turn to violence, he said.
He said school shootings tend to occur more often in rural communities than in big cities. Urban schools are tuned in to the potential for violence and are better prepared to deal with it, he said.
"The key thing to remember is to always be prepared for the potential of violence and to stress intervention as much as possible," Wincelowicz said.
Folks, there's simply no way to anticipate which evil bastard is going to focus his nihilism on a classroom full of children, no way to know who needs that magical "intervention," who is the Grim Reaper in baggie jeans and a ballcap.
Although I do appreciate the way the G-Man also admits that there's no way to stop a determined criminal bent on mayhem from getting a gun onto campus.
The article then quotes a student in favor of relaxing the prohibition on people other than murderers carrying weapons.
Kristin Guttormsen is a senior at Washington State University and a member of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a national organization that advocates allowing university students and others to carry licensed concealed weapons on campus.
Guttormsen said the group formed after the Virginia Tech massacre in April, in which a student shot and killed 32 people and himself. She wonders if fewer people would have died if students had been armed.
"We feel that if someone has the legal right to carry a concealed weapon off campus, there's no justification for barring them from doing so on campus," Guttormsen said.
Sounds like a variation on the highly-successful Israeli defense model.
Check out the ex-FBI man's response.
Wincelowicz, however, thinks that's a bad idea. "Arming everyone escalates rather than de-escalates," he said.
Get that?
Taking action to fight back -- to act so that the students are not defenseless targets awaiting execution at the whim of a killer -- represents nothing so much as an escalation of violence.
I wonder if this pathetic excuse for a lawman -- who embodies every milquetoast stereotype of the ineffectual accountant with a badge, briefcase and gun -- really means that the desired result is a "de-escalat[ion]" of the violence.
Because I'm pretty sure that when the gunfire stops and the smoke clears (all on the shooter's schedule), that too represents a "de-escalation" in the overall level of violence -- at least as compares to what it was a few minutes before when the bullets were flying.
Does the resistance of the passengers on United Flight 93 -- who fought back and prevented the hijackers from flying the jetliner into the nation's capital -- represent an unfortunate escalation of violence?
And so that's where I started out, with the advice from an ex-FBI man to just lay back and enjoy the ride. Because whether its rape or murder or terrorism, fighting back just increases the level of violence.
What an idiot.
Posted by Mike Lief at February 19, 2008 07:22 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
Aaaaand, of course, mister FBI man fails to mention that FBI clowns are *required* to carry their firearm with them at ALL times.
But I guess it's different when federal agents are armed.
They're *better* than mere proles. *Above them* in a "very real, and legally binding way."
Then too, unarmed proles are easier for diligent federal officers to control.
Posted by: nom de guerre at February 19, 2008 11:36 AM
OK, let me see if I understand your point of view, Teddy. Everyone not only should be allowed to carry a gun, we should encourage it. Except I assume for convicted felons and the demonstrably insane? And they should be allowed to conceal and carry them at school and in their cars and to football games and to movie theaters.
This is, I assume, all based on the theory that if everyone can carry a gun, then the people who are planning to shoot up a school or other places will think twice before unleashing a spree of gunfire since they too may suffer a deadly fate when others around them return fire.
This of course assumes a level of thought that I'm not sure actually exists, but even assuming the correctness of the point, my concern is not that we won't have fewer deadly mass school shootings, we probably will have fewer of those, or at least fewer people will die in those incidents. My concern is that we'll have a lot more everyday shootings, when road rage gets the better of folks, when a drunken fool gets too mouthy at a the ballgame, when a CHP officer pulls over the slightly drunk group of construction workers. Really any situation where the judgement of one person is impaired enough to give him the boldness and lack of foresight to pull out a gun. I fear that shootings will rapidly increase in number because, given the chance to do something, I fear that the general populous will choose more often than not to do the stupid thing over the sensible one.
Of course I could be wrong, maybe no one will get shot when the Jack-in-the-Box counter person puts tomato on the slightly stoned twenty-something's burger after he specifically asked for it without. But knowing what I do about human nature, I suspect we'll see lots more shootings, not lots less when any idiot can get a concealed gun permit.
Posted by: BullButtz at February 20, 2008 08:30 PM
BullButtz --
I can see your point; it was raised by the Brady anti-gun coalition right around the time states began changing from discretionary issue to shall-issue for concealed weapons permits about 20 years ago.
Critics warned of shootouts over parking spaces; cutting in line at concerts; having too many items in the express checkout line at the supermarket.
The reality was -- and is -- that there was no resultant increase in firearms-related homicides in states like Florida, where any citizen without a criminal history can get a concealed carry permit. And the number of CCW-permit holders involved in "bad" shootings is practically nil.
Lest you think I'm exaggerating, even the Brady Campaign was forced to concede that the streets had not run red with the blood of innocents. They shifted the terms of the debate -- and their rhetoric -- arguing instead that large numbers of civilians carrying concealed weapons did not make us safer, a far cry from their earlier position that the public would be placed in grave danger as a result of more guns being on the streets.
And in movie theaters.
And at ballgames.
And construction sites.
You should feel reassured; more than 35 states have implemented non-discretionary, shall-issue concealed weapons permits, without turning into the Wild West.
Besides, what idiot would get upset about a tomato on a burger?
Posted by: Mike Lief at February 20, 2008 10:28 PM
The only way to fight bad people with guns is with good people with guns. Anyone being shot at (or raped) is praying for a good person with a gun to protect them.
Posted by: Red Girl in a Blue State at February 21, 2008 01:39 PM
I know that the topic of school violence which took place in Oxnard was only a brief part of the discussion, but I wanted to point out that this was a crime of hate.
One boy shot the other because he was dressing in a feminine way which was troublesome to the boy who had access to the gun.
I think in this particular case, the question isn't what can we do to keep kids safe at school, but what can we teach them about acceptance? How can we teach that violence isn't the answer when it is so much of what the kids see? How can we intervene before the problem escalates? And as a society, why do we let kids have access to guns (aside from supervised sport or hunting with an adult)?
Posted by: Dawn at February 29, 2008 04:28 AM