“We often wonder if school shootings would have different endings if students had guns to take matters into their own hands. All the modern-day shooters had one thing in common: they were bullied. They brought guns to school to even the playing field. Harassed for their size, interests or social awkwardness, these boys were compelled to procure lethal weapons, bring them to school and take out their anger. I find it ironic that in institutions of higher learning, which take pride in spreading ideas and critical thinking, people want more concealed weapons as a way to diffuse conflict. Suggesting adding more guns to the equation, with all the conflicts that occur on school campuses, is as reckless as opening Pandora’s box.” – Roy Ribitzky
All the modern-day shooters had one thing in common: they were bullied.
All the modern-day shooters had one thing in common: they were f^cking psychotic a$$holes.
Fixed.
Why is this pr!ck blaming the victims?
Because he’s an idiot with an agenda.
From the by-line:
“He is a Sociology major with a minor in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. He is interested in domestic and international politics, social justice, and issues of masculinity and gender.”
[Rant] from Aharon in 5, 4, 3…
When I was an undergrad, I was a Poli Sci Major with a Minor in Beer and a Concentration on Women. And I did as many “Sexuality Studies” as I possibly could.
I’ll bet that I had a better time than Ribitzky. Then again, it was the Swinging Sixties.
I took the same degree in the 1980s. And also ended up a lawyer.
And also ended up a lawyer.
Think of it as penance. I know I do.
I’ll bet ol’ Roy has perfect pronunciation when he says: “Would you like a large order of fries with that order?”
I was also a Poli Sci major, in the 90s in my case. I, however, ended up doing computer-ish stuff.
He is a eunuch.
McCarthyism and the red-scare is alive on campuses only now Americans with traditional values (and especially Republicans) are being targeted by the radicals. Last year, the man who was seen as the national leader of the Men’s Studies courses on campus — a program more focused on gay men’s studies and feminist advocacy than on studying real issues pertaining to men in society — underwent sexual reconstruction surgery ie he is now a she. It was symbolic and rather amusing to those of us who follow men’s rights issues.
Let history speak for itself. Consider how America has changed the past 45+ years and that the two most powerful and influential ideological movements in America and the resulting trends have been and are still feminism and political correctness. The misinformation, propaganda, bs stats, irrational logic, etc are political and social transformational tools being used to re-mold America.
BTW, about seven years ago, I read a study that linked all those high school school mass shootings to some interesting common denominators. The shooters were teenage white males ALL of whom society now finds it necessary to put on a form of Ritalin to ‘calm them down’. In 5-10% of cases adverse reactions to the drugs can cause the opposite to occur: the user becomes more aggressive. Today’s school system doesn’t like boys who are more fidgety and mischievous than girls. Just give em Ritalin to dope ’em up and make them more compliant. Oh yeah, the teenage boy suicide rate has increased 300% since the 1970s ever see the media address that one? Probably not. You would read about it on MSNBC front-page if the girls suicide rate was up 300%. For girls the suicide rate is down since the 1970s. What can one expect in a society that lauds the female and bashes the male?
Geepers! It really says that from his by-line! I thought you were making a joke! So he is studying “issues of masculinity and gender”. I gotta wonder what pushed him into studying that? Nah, not really, I probably couldn’t handle the answer with out loosing my lunch.
I don’t typically make stuff up, Joe.
Oh great, so not only are you saying he’s againsts our natural rights to defend ourselves that we are lucky to have in comparison to the rest of the world, but he’s also a male feminist in training…talk about an oxymoron.
Why is this pr!ck blaming the victims?
Because it’s true, for the most part. Yes, some shootings are just a person who’s a wacko, but most of the time it’s because they’ve had enough and want payback. It’s always aggravating to see people discuss how the shooter was beaten up every day for having different hobbies or dressing differently and then they want to claim that the bullies were just perfect little angels. The moral of the story is that if you’re an asshole, eventually you’re going to be an asshole to the wrong person and you’re going to get your ass kicked or killed. Just be nice and your odds of being shot drop significantly.
Well said.
Nonsense. Nobody laid a hand on any of the school shooters. They may have been teased and ostracized for being a$$holes, but guess what — they were a$$holes and they deserved to be ostracized. Hell, they deserved to be shot.
+1
The Columbine murderers were not bullied. One was a sociopathic little **** and the other was an easily influenced schizoid numbskull.
This myth that every school shooter was bullied needs to stop. Some were, but many weren’t. They’re just nuts.
Agreed, this guy is talking out of his ass. If you are going to say school shooters were bullied you better have some kind of info to back that up. The truth is that neither the Columbine nor Virginia Tech incidents were caused by bullied kids but by psycos. This prick should get his facts straight!
Whoaaaa, slow down there cowboy. That’s not fair to request that the brady bunch and company actually use ACCURATE facts and statistics.
what a waste of intellegance …….
Let’s keep campuses disarmed because that works so effing well.
If he is ever in a situation like that he’ll change his mind.
If he is ever in a situation like that he’ll change his mind.
Or he’ll write a book called, say, “Living off Thirty Two” and become a paid shill for the Brady Campaign Against America.
“Or he’ll narrowly survive by cowering under his desk* and then write a book called, say, “living off Thirty Two” and become a paid shill for the Brady Campaign Against America.”
*Fixed
Here we go again. Lets call a guy who got shot four times a coward. And yeah, if you say “cowered” about someone’s actions, thats what you are doing.
Disagree with the guy all you want. Hell, criticize him for leveraging other victim’s suffering to make a political point. But lets not go calling him a coward for not running headlong at a shooter who’d have probably killed him. It makes all of us look bad.
From my experience, when bad things happen quickly, only about 1 in 20 people will get over their shock enough to do something in time. Hiding in a corner is instinct, running headlong at a dual-wielding psychopath is suicide.
This isn’t Call of Duty… he had no cover, no weapon, no way to flank the kid. They were f*&$ed from the start. If one of them had been armed, different story… I acknowledge that point.
Do I sound ticked off? I went to VT, and knew some of the victims. Are they cowards too if they died huddled in a corner?
I think the point of criticism is the profiting and spotlight seeking he sought after the incident.
Fight or Flight. Run for you life, or attack the motherfvcker. He did neither. He chose not to fight for his life.
I might be crass, or un-sympathetic, or an asshole (which I admit to), or WTFever you want to call me. But I don’t seem to respond well to someone getting paid to invoke his butchered classmates as he looks down his nose at me and tells me that my friends, my sisters, and myself, should all be unarmed and helpless. Especially when that particular person didn’t have the fortitude to fight for his own life.
“They were f*&$ed from the start.”
Why do you think that is? They were all unarmed, helpless, sitting ducks. But then that POS turns right around and exploits the memory of those victims (some of which you knew) because he’s getting paid to.
So FLAME DELETED and the horse he rode in on.
But lets not go calling him a coward for not running headlong at a shooter who’d have probably killed him. It makes all of us look bad.
That’s not why he’s a coward. It’s the fact that he was in ROTC, did nothing in a combat situation (which he’s supposedly spent time training for), and then after the fact blames people who would’ve tried to do something instead of crying like a little girl like he did. In that situation he had no reasonable expectation of surviving – so if you’re pretty sure you’re going to die, why NOT try to do something? You’re going to die if you don’t do something (unless you get lucky), so you have nothing to lose.
If you’re the same Josh I’m thinking of from previous posts, then you’ve already stated that you blame inanimate objects for violence instead of people, which makes you no better than that coward who blames guns for him getting shot.
Let me be clear here. Criticizing him for his opinions is one thing. Criticizing him for his behavior in the shooting is asinine.
I don’t blame guns for shootings. You must be thinking back to my opinion that selling a gun to a stranger should require some kind of background check to make sure they aren’t a felon. To me thats reasonable, to most TTAG commenters its treasonous.. whatever.
But I don’t call a man a coward for getting shot. I generally avoid calling folks out on stuff without personal experience. I’ve never been shot. I’ve never been unarmed in a room when a maniac comes in. I’d like to think I’d be brave, but you don’t really know until you have it happen. Even if you’re a badass commando SEAL, you are at a huge disadvantage when you have nothing and the other guy is dual-wielding and prepared.
Even if you’re a badass commando SEAL, you are at a huge disadvantage when you have nothing and the other guy is dual-wielding and prepared.
Quite true, but how you react both during the situation and afterwards (if you’re alive) is what matters. You don’t run around blaming inanimate objects because you chose to do nothing. Sure, his options weren’t good, but out of the limited options he had, he chose to do nothing despite all options having an equal chance of survival.
Like it or not, it’s when the pressure is on that you find out what a person is made of. We found out that Colin Goddard is an utterly useless POS with no redeeming qualities.
Oh, and unless I’m confusing you with someone else, you once went on a rant blaming guns for a friend / relatives death.
Relative. And I didn’t blame the gun. I own the same weapon. I’m not going to go back into that again, other than to say that the weapon used by the felon was sold in a legal venue, and that if a background check had been mandated, the sale wouldn’t have happened.
Your points are acknowledged though.
Uh huh. Well I went to VT as well. As an ESM major, Norris Hall was the building where I had most of my classes. One of my coworkers was in the building and injured then. Let me say this, if students, faculty, staff, and visitors who had concealed carry permits had been allowed to carry on campus there would have been a chance that not as many people would have “died huddled in a corner”.
No one is asking everyone out there to be a hero whether they want to or not. We want the opportunity to protect ourselves, our families, and those around us. And we sure as hell don’t want someone trying to make money or score political points off the deaths of others.
Yes, I spent many, many days in those same rooms taking dynamics, fluid mechanics, etc…
My point is this… the first thread here (by Ralph) was fine. But the whole thing started by Derek where he refers to the guy’s actions during the shooting? C’mon.. its just plain obnoxious and unfair.
You’ve been in those rooms, you remember how open they were and how flimsy the desks were… theres just no frickin way… Besides, most folks with no training or experience will freeze in those situations. Its just reality.
I am 100% FOR CCW ON CAMPUS. I’m 100% AGAINST calling someone a coward for their unarmed actions during a shooting.
Yeah, I can understand that. Besides, I wasn’t there, so I have no idea what he did in the heat of the moment.
I judge him for what he did afterwards, which I view as cynical and exploitive.
“…people want more concealed weapons as a way to diffuse conflict.”
No one, police included, carries a gun to diffuse a situation. They carry it to survive potentially lethal confrontations. If the bad guy sees his victims are armed and de-escalates by disarming or fleeing, that’s a good outcome, but it’s not the goal. The goal is survival.
I think a lot of the “all violence is always bad/ don’t ever get angry” crowd don’t quite jive with forcing a confrontation to end. The guy who forces a gunman to surrender at gunpoint is somehow morally inferior to the guy that talks it out without anyone getting their feelings hurt.
Thank you for sharing your arrogant, condescending, elitist, smarmy douchebag opinion with us in as respectful a manner as possible. Now kindly go blow it out your ass.
You forgot to add: “Strongly worded comment to follow.”
Indeed. Allow me to demonstrate:
“Fvck you; strong message follows: Kindly go blow it out your ass. Fvck you very much; strong message ends.”
Like that, so people see it coming and can brace themselves.
‘Shine, you are a man of extraordinary eloquence.
Thank you, Ralph. I’ve been trying to work on my people skills, lately. Glad to hear my hard work is starting to pay off.
You definitely have style! I know I like to be “braced” before a strong message. ROTFLMAO
I don’t understand, why don’t they just put up ‘no guns allowed’ signs? If someone doesn’t see the sign and brings in a gun to kill people, the students can just point to the sign and the would-be shooter would have to leave. It’s so simple, even an undergraduate can do it.
I agree, that would totally fix the problem.
I support free fire, err, gun free zones.
They work so well.
Here’s some critical thinking.
1. You rarely hear about on-duty police being mugged.
2. You rarely hear about on-duty police being raped.
3. You rarely hear about on-duty police being car jacked.
4. You rarely hear about on-duty police murdering each other.
5. You rarely hear about on-duty police being murdered, except by a psycho. And if they’re a psycho, all bets are off anyways.
Why do you rarely hear about those incidents? Police are armed on-duty. This has become my go to explanation to people who refuse to believe that guns deter and stop crime.
I’ve never once heard of someone getting mugged on the way out of the gun range either … I find it interesting that this individual blames the behavior on bullying and these people seeking revenge. That’s simply not accurate, these people don’t target specific individuals who have bullied them, they kill indiscriminately. It’s certainly a warped world when we consider playground teasing to be the cause of the world’s problems and analyze bullying, and yet the biggest bully of all would seem to be the person who brings a gun into a school to murder people, but that behavior is excused.
But…they are more equal than we are.
We are expendable!
Another day, another arrogant opinion from someone who’s never been in that situation. I’d love to see him try to “diffuse” a situation with a school shooter through words and kindness.
Not to mention the MASSIVE projection going on here. Like most fanatically “peace” minded people, he subconsciously knows and fears his own potential and even desire for violence, and thus believes that everyone would settle conflicts that way. So, it’s easier to blame an object rather than examine a person’s potential and responsibility.
+ a billion on the projection thing.
When I actually get to talking to these “peace idealists” they consistently surprise me in that their views tend always to stem from what they know to be their own capacities for unjustified over-reaction and vindictive cruelty. They fear their own self-control, usually because it has failed them in the past.
I’ve never had that fear. I feel like I’m more of a natural pacifist than they are.
In high school I had deep angsty thoughts that no one ever had before (except for everyone).
In my first few years of college I felt like I had truly awakened, everything was so obvious, and I alone had the solution for everything (all of which I got from my gen ed classes which sat over 100 other students each).
In my later years of college when things actually started to get complex I felt like I must have been asleep before, how “sophomoric” I was earlier! I’m almost as smart as my professors!
In graduate school I realized my professors aren’t actually all that smart and by the time I got my M.S. I realized I wasn’t either. Onward to industry! Those folks are smart! I’ll learn there.
Working in industry, I realized those folks aren’t that smart either. Management wasn’t as cunning and slick as I was told they’d be. They are actually only taking lessons from grade school lunch rooms and playgrounds. Everyone works to avoid work, and if you are motivated they circle you like vultures.
Working on a PhD. I’m not smart. My professors aren’t smart. Industry isn’t smart. No one’s smart. We’ll never be smart. The world is unimaginably and staggeringly complex. What we don’t know makes everything we do know look like nothing. There are no complete answers. Everything we know or think is an approximation, limited by our not being “smart” enough. I guess I’m going to go to sleep again!
-D
Have you been reading Ecclesiastes again?
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
Anyone who tells you that they have the perfect answer to some age old problem (e.g. psycho killers murdering innocent people, or “climate change”) is lying, and they probably stand to profit from folks buying into their lies.
Lol, Maybe. It could have also been the Beatles:
There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
There’s nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time.
There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known.
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.
All you need is love. John Lennon, smart man, shot in the back. Very sad.
John Lennon takes six fvckin’ bullets in the back. Yoko Ono, standing right fvckin’ next to him? Not a scratch. There’s no justice, people.
I’d change your claims in one way: my professors might be very smart, but even if they are, they are experts in very narrow fields of study.
I was being a bit hyperbolic. I’ve met really smart folks anywhere I’ve ever been. 😉
There are all sorts of great truths that relate to guns just like this Thermal Bottle (works for up to 24 hours) in the shape of a great big shotgun shell.
12 Gauge Shotgun Shell Thermal Bottle (25 oz.)
http://www.russellsformen.com/12-gauge-shotgun-shell-thermal-bottle/p/SSIhhhTB12R/
The argument is only true to an extent: Some kids who are bullied become bullies. To become bullies, they only need to acquire a handgun. The question is; would more guns help solve this problem?
I am not talking about society in general, I am not talking about cops. I am talking about school-age teenagers. In that case, the answer is clearly no. Most teenagers do not have the ability to make snap judgments involving life and death.
Although they can be trained to use guns properly (in the military, for example), thew general rule is that giving guns to teens leads to more violence, not less.
Every responsible gun owner knows why you don’t give guns to people who are untrained. In real or imagined danger, they will draw their weapon. The police will then see a random person with a weapon drawn, and kill them.
you don’t give guns to people who are untrained
Sorry, but we don’t “give” guns to anyone. People buy them. Good people buy them legally, bad people buy them illegally, but nobody “gives” them anything.
Yes, as you noted, some kids are bullied, and some of them become bullies, while others don’t. Some kids think they’re being bullied, but they’re actually oversensitive and their weakness is exploited by dickheads on Facebook and other social media.
And some bullies become cops, where being a bully might actually be rewarded.
Just like A Clockwork Orange
Well, Well, Well……
The argument is only true to an extent: Some kids who are bullied become bullies; they only need to acquire a handgun. The question is; would more guns help solve this problem?
I am not talking about society in general, I am not talking about cops. I am talking about school-age teenagers. In that case, the answer is clearly no.
Although they can be trained to use guns properly (in the military, for example), the training is rarely good enough. Allowing guns to teens usually leads to more violence, not less.
Every responsible gun owner knows why you don’t give guns to people who are under-trained. In real or imagined danger, they will draw their weapon. The police will then see a random person with a weapon drawn, and kill them.
As we all know, nobody is responsible for their own actions. Murderers are always the victims and the deceased are always at fault. Those of us who disagree aren’t enlightened. It is the reason America sucks so bad compared to itself forty years ago.
As a student at the University of Georgia after the VT shooting, there were many arguments in my classes about whether to allow permit holders to carry to class. During one of those arguments, I angrily stood up and yelled at some poor girl, “Do you realize that by the time that kid had chained the door shut and pulled out his gun, he would have been dead? A single firearm in that class would have ended the situation before it was even started.” In the end, the kids there believed that if everyonestarted throwing school books at him, he would have given up. So naive, so sad.
First off, this guy looks like a total douche. Secondly, we can tell by the way he is too lazy to properly button his collar and fix his tie for the picture that he tries really hard to look like he has the I don’t care because I’m cool look. Which leads me to my question for him: as much as you were bullied on school, why didn’t you go out and shoot everyone? Answer: because you’re not a nut case, or at least your shell around your little walnuts hasn’t been broken yet.
If you want to be unarmed, fine. But when I go back to visit my alma mater, where the freshman dorms overlook the local projects, I want the right to go forth armed, and I want to same for the younger generation.
P.S. with the name Roy Ribitzky, he was doomed to the sheeple lib masses from birth, poor guy.
You have to read his screed entitled “The President I Wanted,” which is subtitled “Why All of Us Should Gratefully Kiss Obama’s Patootie.” Very amusing.
Okay, I added the subtitle. But it’s accurate. The poor dear’s got a crazy man crush on POTUS.
Ralph: “man crush?” Really? I have a man crush on Timothy Olyphant for the way he handles himself as Raylan Givens. Finally a tv show where the shooters look real. Poor Roy, on the other hand, is madly in love. Madly in love with someone he knows he can’t have. After reading the article you mentioned, I’ve come to the conclusion that he will fall into a highly depressive state after November.
To paraphrase: he is a 21st century leader of a government mired in the 20th… He is the leader we need, but not the leader we want right now.
Like I said, let’s cut our losses, give them Massachusetts, NYC, California and Illinois, evacuate all the pro 2A folks who live there, build a wall around those areas and leave them to deal with their own dog squeeze. As much as they don’t get it, their lives would take a severe turn for the worse. Maybe not immediately, but within five years or so. Just enough time for us to get the rest of the country right.
I missed the UMass bit earlier. Says everything. Here’s an idea, why don’t we close the borders to states like Massachusetts, let them take away all the guns in the state registry, ship the liberals who don’t want guns anywhere to live there, and wait to see how long it takes for their gun free utopia to fall apart.
DC tried that, the crime rate shows how well it worked.
I’ve been saying for years we should give Southern California back to Mexico.
“For a country that takes pride in . . . innocent until proven guilty . . .”
Speaking of that, how is it that our cerebral undergrad has included George Zimmerman in such company as listed in: “What was the “Wild West” all about? What about Columbine? Virginia Tech? George Zimmerman? Fort Hood? Chardon High School?”
The last I heard concerning the Zimmerman/Martin incident was that the Grand Jury was dismissed, and the investigation was continuing. He is clearly in violation of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, since Zimmerman has not even been indicted, let alone convicted.
I think you will find the “Wild West” was a myth created by fiction writers for profit. It is interesting to note the mass shootings lumped together with “George Zimmerman”, (who fired only one shot) were all committed in “gun free zones”. That worked out well, didn’t it? Who could predict that homicidal/suicidal maniacs would be so bold as to violate that strict prohibition by bringing guns and bombs onto those hallowed grounds, where they knew their victims would be defenseless?
One of the major issues here is that his understanding of the use of concealed carry. Having an unknown number of citizens armed in any environment is not about the option diffusing conflict, it’s about preemption of violence. Spree shooters are not looking to get into a shootout with anyone, police or otherwise. They want to create as much slaughter and mayhem as possible, which is why they choose soft targets like schools.
And, once again, some 80 million gun owners did NOT go postal and shoot anyone today.
But according to a certain poster, they are all just hidden criminals.
I particularly like this arguement:
“Taking the conversation further, why stop at educational institutions? Why not allow every employee at every company to carry a sidearm? Workplace harassment is no secret. If a boss dares touch an employee, the victim could easily defend themselves with their weapon – but so could his or her employer. Imagine a boardroom where every single person has a gun holstered on his or her waist. The Chief Executive Officer proposes cutting wages during a union meeting in order to save the company from tanking? Good luck with that one when the room is populated with more weapons than Rolexes.”
I work at a place where 50% (of about 650 employees) of the company regularly carries their firearms with them to work. We’ve never had an incident of someone shooting up the place. Frankly I don’t think anyone would ever dare to do such a thing.
I agree with the author. College students are the most immature, most emotionally unstable adults in our lives, living in a social environment where irresponsible behavior is encouraged and often rewarded. It only makes sense that the best thing to do is give them all handguns.
We don’t “give” people handguns. If they are legally adults (most states 21 years old) then they have the RIGHT to carry a gun. Says so right there in the constitution: the right to keep and bear arms.
WITTY FLAME DELETED
Back in the bad old days of my youth we had access to guns. We had bullies and we had the bullied yet nobody went home and grabbed Dad’s gun and shot up the school. I think the reason for this is that bullied kids got fed up and fought back. They may have gotten their asses kicked but they walked away with a sense of self-respect. Now, the bullied kid who fights back is the one who gets punished. I think it’s the anger and frustration of not being able to protect oneself that leads to these shootings.
Oh yes, the Columbine shooters weren’t bullied. They were more like Le0pold and Loeb.
I find it funny that everytime I see articles like this that commenting is disabled. I think they grow tired of their points being proven wrong with relevant facts and statistics.
Pandora’s box has been opened in Colorado and Utah. Haven’t seen any of Pandora’s demons or curses yet.
http://dianedimond.net/packing-heat-at-college/#more-3840
“…institutions of higher learning … take pride in spreading ideas and critical thinking”? Where is that displacing indoctrination?