Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Who is Who In a Mass Shooting?

Aikido is a martial art, meaning the practitioners are warriors.  When faced with threat, they go right at the problem.  Their are practical difference in say Karate, Judo and Aikido, but they all deal with threats of force or fraud.

Having said that, take a look at this picture forma recent Community College shooting.  What do you see?

Aftermath of Virginia mall shooting

There is a person with a gun and a rifle pointed at three fellows in submission.  Who is that person?  Did you answer "police officer"?  How do you know?  Because of the vest?

In the chaotic situation of a mass shooting, who knows who is who?  We see after all "officer-safety" issues are addressed, the police then come in and start putting everyone under the gun.  But what if shooters claim to be police?

Now you may think that is silly, but at this very school in this very case, the shooter tried to lure people out to kill them by claiming to be a police officer.

A student at the New River Community College claimed that MacInnis pretended to be a police officer before shooting two women inside the campus. Cops say the suspect allegedly practiced firing guns with Christiansburg police.

I've heard this before in such cases, so it caught my attention.  It seems the killers are learning by experience.

1. Go to gun-control jurisdictions.

2. Go to gun-free zones, like schools and post offices, or the murder capital of USA, Washington, DC.

3. Claim to be a police officer in the chaos, you'll kill more people.

So.  is this person, holding a high capacity magazine gun, just awaiting to collect enough submissive people along the curb so that she can kill as many people as possible?  How do you know that is not the case?

As a martial artist in a killing zone, if I see someone coming at me with a weapon I will disarm that person.  Why would I do otherwise?  In a shooting situation where I am unarmed, why is anyone coming at me with a gun?  Since I am always unarmed, why point a gun at me?

If the person is a police officer, why would they point a gun at anyone who is not armed?  So they can be in control?  The cops may know one another, and if so they should be looking for shooters, not gather people who make good targets. What if the shooter barges out the door and kills the cop?  Then those lads are next.  No, this policy will not do.

I might get killed disarming someone, but that is the choice I made when I became a martial artist.  I sure am not going to wait to find out if a shooter is awaiting the optimum killing opportunity.

My father was a English professor at a small Jesuit liberal arts college for 45 years.  He was armed every day.  So were other professors.  There was a gun club on campus.  No one knew. Never a shooting.  I was around guns enough to know they are not for me.  But I've never feared guns.

The first of these mass shootings happened in Austin TX.  The first cop on the scene asked who all the people returning fire were...  came the reply "Texans."

The shooter was killed by that first cop and a citizen who worked their way through the field of fire and up the stairs past the dead, unarmed people, to the top of the tower. It was 50/50 which of the two, heading in opposite directions, would first meet the shooter.  The cop killed the shooter.

John Lott has discovered that when the police end a shooting spree, it takes more time and more people die.  When a private citizen ends the shooting spree, it takes less time and fewer die.  Our safety is in an armed citizenry, hence the second amendment.

The few people who are into guns and responsibly carry them are necessary and sufficient to keep us all safe.  When seconds matter, the cops will get there in ten minutes or so.

We do not need more gun laws, we need to get rid of the ones we have.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

No comments:

Post a Comment