Tuesday, April 19, 2011

On Colin Goddard

The gun control groups are shocked that the gun blog community is speaking out against the actions, or lack thereof, of Colin Goddard during the Virginia Tech Shootings. They've even called out yours truly and linked here because I said this: "
As for Colin Goddard, he didn’t 'freeze.' By his own words, he was hiding under a desk for at least 10 MINUTES, before Cho showed up. He refused, consciously, to defend himself OR leave the target area. Lockdown? Screw that. What is he, a child?"

Apparently, questioning their spokesman's qualifications or actions is now an attack.

Colin Goddard is a victim of a deadly assault. However, that does not make him sacrosanct nor an authority on the carrying of guns or the 2nd Amendment.

The question that 2nd Amendment activists have about Mr. Goddard is: why is he attacking such things as the non-existent gun show "loophole" instead of strengthening mental health laws? THAT might actually accomplish something. Furthermore, he is using his victimization to justify that we act as he did. So...what did he do? He hid while innocents died. I speculate that there may be some guilt that he is experiencing, because, by all accounts, Mr. Goddard is a nice, conscientious, caring man. And he "froze" because a person in authority told him to hide. And so, he blames inanimate objects instead of the true causes of the attack.

My understanding is that Mr. Goddard admits to hiding under a desk for 10 minutes.

1) He has ROTC training, he should be held to a higher standard,though, based upon his reasons for leaving it, its obvious that he learned nothing. Goddard states,
...taking part in ROTC gave him second thoughts about the military. "He said, 'I don't want people to follow me because I frighten them.' He said, 'I want people to follow me because of the example I set,' " Andrew Goddard said.
If that's his view of the military, we are fortunate that he dropped out. However, that training should have taught him that hiding in a room is useless and that the "orders" given by the teacher, however well intentioned, were dangerous.

2) A man does not cower under a desk while innocents are in danger. Yes, he was terrified, as would anybody. The only reason that his actions are being questioned is that he is demanding that other people be placed in his position, stating that a firearm would not have helped him. So, we must all cower the next time this happens.

3) And this is the big question...why DIDN'T he or anyone else think to barricade the door with a desk, or chairs, or set up an ambush? What is the cause behind that mindset that causes those in academia and/or the left to be passive? Is it coincidence that the only man to attempt to protect his students was a refugee from totalitarianism?

If Mr. Goddard had not put himself into the political arena of advocating for the restriction of rights, those questions would not have been brought forth. Would the gun banners give similar credence to his opinions if he had the opinion, like others did, that being defenseless was wrong, and that if he had been allowed to carry, he might have saved lives?

The problem is that Mr. Goddard WAS defenseless, except for desperate measures like those described above. And now, he is advocating, no...demanding that we all be the same.

Labels: , ,

|

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home