Ending the cycles of preventative reaction

Via Glenn Reynolds (who sees a tipoff in the "candlelight vigils"), Rand Simberg skewers one of the most idiotic arguments I have yet heard against armed self defense.

Anti-gun activists have found a convenient poster boy for their cause -- one John Woods, described as "a student at Virginia Tech when his girlfriend and several other people he knew there were gunned down." Woods says he thought about getting a gun, then rejected the idea, for reasons I find incomprehensible:

There were times when Woods thought that maybe he should get a gun.

"Then I learned pretty fast that wouldn't solve anything," said Woods, who is now a graduate student at UT. "The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It's reactive, not preventative."

Today, Woods is among the leaders in a fight against bills in the Texas Legislature that would allow licensed concealed gun carriers to take their weapons to school.

If the "idea" that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible, then what could possibly explain the fact that shootings stop when the gunman is finally shot?

reactive, not preventative?

Whatever can he mean? That it is wrong to react? Are the two mutually exclusive? Isn't it self-apparent that a reaction (say, shooting the shooter) can also be preventative? And is not what he would call "prevention" (in the form of gun control) also reactive in nature?

Why isn't it "reactive" to fight against bills that would allow concealed carry?

I'm having trouble understanding how this false dichotomy assists anyone's understanding in any way.

Perhaps I'm being reactive, though.

Were I more preventative, I'd go attend a candlelight vigil.

posted by Eric on 03.31.09 at 11:12 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8122






Comments

This is what happens when you send marginal thinkers to university. They get to thinking that they have a clue.

You can no more prevent crime than you can prevent an earthquake. You can, at best, plan to minimize the damage and clean up after the inevitable.

brian   ·  March 31, 2009 11:17 AM

To be prepared for an incident is proactive, to do something is reactive. But to wait until some time after the incident then decide what you woulda/shoulda done is inane.

hugh   ·  March 31, 2009 11:37 AM

"Woods ... said he hasn’t heard from any survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who supports guns on campus." It's because everyone knows talking to you would be a waste of time, dude.

Wayne   ·  March 31, 2009 11:50 AM

" I'm having trouble understanding how this false dichotomy assists anyone's understanding in any way."...Because you are trying to the logic in this percons argument. Unfortunately, there is no logic involved with the position this person has staked out. One wonders, accepting his position at face value, why he bothered hiding at all.

Edward Lunny   ·  March 31, 2009 02:36 PM

What else should one expect from the ACC and the Big 12?

dr kill   ·  March 31, 2009 02:45 PM

Mr. Woods argument is thus: "I suffered in a tragedy. I therefore am entitled to non sequiturs in perpetuity." See also anti-Bush 9-11 Families.

Rhodium Heart   ·  March 31, 2009 02:47 PM

Obviously the kid didn't major in logic. No doubt he is a big fan of Obama.

Bilwick1   ·  March 31, 2009 05:10 PM
said Woods, who is now a graduate student at UT.

stop stupidity close the universities!

dre   ·  March 31, 2009 07:01 PM

There is no 2nd Amendment in Mexico.

The Mexican are going to have to fight a civil war there soon to keep the drug gangs from taking over. Their government is corrupt and incapable of defending individual liberties. Because of Mexican gun laws, only the bad guys have the guns.

Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc., are unfortunate consequences of living in a free society. Without the right to gun ownership, eventually - as in Mexico - the bad guys will wind up with all the guns and individuals won't have a chance. Take your pick. There really isn't any gray area here.

MAS1916   ·  March 31, 2009 07:06 PM

Mr. Woods is a coward. There were plenty of chances to pull out a gun if armed since Cho was going from floor to floor and room to room. The professor who blocked the door and shield with his body had an opportunity to attempt to defend. Any armed CCW holder could have shot Cho instead of lying down and pretending to be dead.

Like any coward Mr. woods wants everyone else to be a coward so his cowardice does not show up.

Anyway Jeanne Assam in Colorado showed what one armed person can do to a determined assailant. After she shot him he elected suicide rather than more homocide.

Anonymous   ·  March 31, 2009 08:16 PM

Mr. Woods is a coward. There were plenty of chances to pull out a gun if armed since Cho was going from floor to floor and room to room. The professor who blocked the door and shield with his body had an opportunity to attempt to defend. Any armed CCW holder could have shot Cho instead of lying down and pretending to be dead.

Like any coward Mr. woods wants everyone else to be a coward so his cowardice does not show up.

Anyway Jeanne Assam in Colorado showed what one armed person can do to a determined assailant. After she shot him he elected suicide rather than more homocide.

RAH   ·  March 31, 2009 08:16 PM

He's obviously forgotten Charles Whitman. Or never knew about him.

Donna B.   ·  April 1, 2009 12:45 AM

May 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits