The Dreaded "Gun Control" Issue

Obviously both sides have divided into their respective camps to use the shooting tragedy as ammunition (no pun intended) to sling at the other side.

I'm about the only neutral person I know when it comes to this debate because I've lived in countries that have draconian gun laws, and I live here. I've been trained in martial arts and I'm big -- so I'd love a world without guns because I could rule it (just joking) -- but I've also been a member of Special Forces and well trained in weapons.

Here's the bottom line...gun control was already in place at Virginia Tech i.e. nobody is allowed to take guns on the campus except for sworn law enforcement officers. Gun control didn't work very well then did it? All it meant, as it always does, is that law abiding citizens were left defenseless while the lunatic (strange that he didn't abide by the law eh?) went on his rampage.

This begs the question. Could someone carrying on campus have put an end to his rampage before his toll got into double digits? Well the problem has been asked and answered in May of last year in an Oklahoma City mall. A kid pulled a gun and was about to go on a killing spree when an off-duty sheriff's deputy heard the first shot and was able to shoot the shooter first. Nobody knows how many victims there may have been if he had not been present with a weapon.

It's black and white folks...the only way to stop that killer yesterday was to shoot him first.

How about the argument that if we had gun control across the country he wouldn't have been able to get a firearm? Great idea in theory but it hasn't worked very well as far as illegal drugs are concerned has it. In other words, they banned drugs here a long time ago. In fact we declared war on them and that war costs billions. Anybody going to tell me you can't buy any illegal drug of your choice within five miles of your home? Banning guns would achieve exactly the same result. If you're still having trouble wrapping your head round that look at England which has some of the most draconian gun laws on the planet. Want to bet me you can't get guns in England if you're so inclined?

That leaves us right back where we started i.e. law abiding citizens are disarmed while the bad guys walk round with impunity.

How about the police argument? I'll answer that one directly. Virginia Tech has it's own police department. 31 people still died there yesterday and the bad guy didn't die at their hands, he died at his. The Police, like it or not, are only trained to deal with crime AFTER the fact. That may be great for nabbing the bad guys (or not, as the case may be) but it does very little for the victims.

Yes, arming teachers would be controversial and yes, there's an element of risk. If you made it public knowledge that you were doing so the teacher might be the very first victim (keep in mind the German teacher was the very first person to be shot in the German class at Virginia Tech despite not being armed) but, if you didn't tell anyone!!!

If you take guns out of the equation all you're left with is the old "Fight, Flight or Freeze" which would amount to attack the guy unarmed, run and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back or "freeze" which in this case would mean going to ground and hiding -- and hope he doesn't find you and shoot you in your hiding spot.

I don't know about you people but 31 victims who tried all of the above i.e. fighting, flighting or hiding are all dead which doesn't really instill much faith in those methods if that's your answer to the gun/no gun question.

Let me finish by posing this question. If you are a believer in gun control what is your solution to yesterday's problem exactly? Don't just blather on about why guns are bad, and don't accuse me of being some sort of psycho, just come up with a viable option and I'm on board.

I just don't see one when I look at it other than the obvious, arm the faculty.

The Infamous Fight or Flight

I always hear people talking about "Fight or Flight" as if that's the only two options in a fight. So which one is the person who is "paralysed by fear" doing? What about all the people who look up to see a car bearing down on them, or an avalanche who freeze in their tracks until flattened? Were they running or were they fighting?

"Freeze" is a third element that needs to be discussed. In some cases it's intentional and others it's not. I'm no expert but I imagine someone who's never been exposed to a certain event, or even thought about it, might freeze. Take the car for example. You look up and it's coming at you at 35 mph...when would the average person ever have thought about that one happening? Their brain quickly sifts through the memory banks for something...anything and nothing appears. Results, frozen in place until flattened.

Freezing obviously stands us in good stead in other situations. Military personnel are taught to freeze during night ops if a flare is tripped, for movement will give you away faster than anything else. Commandos are taught to use it when moving behind enemy lines and think they may have been spotted. Snipers use the same skill when 'stalking' into place for their shot.

Undoubtedly our cave men ancestors used it to survive being eaten by predatory animals. Many of the latter hunt by sight and freezing is very effective against big game either when hunting them or being hunted by them.

So remember, next time you hear the old "fight or flight" line freeze, and remember the third option nobody ever seems to talk about.