As usual, the mainstream media is imploding with madness over the lastest tragedy to hit America. Instead of thinking about what we can do in the future, a few bored writers decided to start conjecture on what they would do differently if put in the same situation as those who lost their lives.

From DailyKos by way of ThinkProgress by way of TimeBlog:

As NRO’s designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn’t anyone rush the guy? It’s not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness’ sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren’t very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can’t hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren’t bad.

Yes, yes, I know it’s easy to say these things: but didn’t the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It’s true—none of us knows what he’d do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I’d at least take a run at the guy.

John Derbyshire of National Review

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. …

Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.

Nathaniel Blake at Human Events Online

Blake goes on to praise one individual for his heroism but in general, Human Events Online prematurely bashed the New York Times for prematurely calling for gun control but interestingly linked to the NYTimes in a positive light earlier in the same article.

James Alan Fox of the LA Times claims to know the impossible in his article ‘Why They Kill,’ a both well-intentioned and a objective view of these cases in general.

Oddly enough, Fox News’s reporting hasnt been terrible, although Shepard Smith conducts an interview with a surprisingly fake sense of sympathy. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t even try to fake it. The O’Reily Factor is sure to entertain tonight.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Random Posts

  • Four 8-1 Decisions in One Day: The Supreme Court released four opinions today, and each was 8-1. You can find all of the opinions here. CompuCredit v. Greenwood, a case...
  • New Opinions and Updated Statistics: The Supreme Court released three new opinions today and dismissed one hotly-anticipated case as improvidently granted. Graham v. Florida-...
  • Top Female Advocates Before the Supreme Court: To celebrate Patricia Millett's record-breaking thirty-first Supreme Court argument last week in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatom...
  • Belated Decade Advocate Scorecard: For one reason or another, it looks like I forgot to post my updated advocate scorecard for the decade at the end of the last term. Origin...
  • A Deeper Look at Reversal Rates: An article in today's Cincinati Enquirer highlights the Sixth Circuit's current 15-case losing streak in the Supreme Court. Circuits regular...