“What kind of classroom situation is productive if you have students thinking about shooting the person that comes in the door?”
What kind of productive classroom situation is it if the person coming through the door has a gun and plans to shoot? And how did hiding under a desk and playing dead work out for you in that situation, Colin? This article points out:
“So many people have told me to my face, ‘If I was there with you that day, I would have saved the lives of students all around you,'” he said. “That almost offends me.”
[…]
“You don’t think rationally,” he said. “You don’t understand what’s going on – it’s absolutely terrifying and crazy.”
I’m afraid I’m almost going to offend Colin here as well, because not everyone reacts that way in high stress situations. I’m not going to beat my chest and suggest that I wouldn’t; that’s not something you know until you’re in a life and death situation, but not everyone reacts by cowering in fear, and many people are completely capable of making correct decisions in those circumstances.
Goddard seems to be fond of saying guns wouldn’t have helped in his situation. He even notes in this article that “his class was slow to realize what was happening. They attributed the bangs they heard from the hallway to construction noise from an adjacent building,” but we know from the Virginia Tech report that room 211, which housed Goddard’s French class, was the third classroom on the second floor that Cho entered. If Goddard was so sure what he was hearing was construction noise, why did he call 911? Why were his classmates barricading the door? Afraid of rampaging construction workers? From the report:
She and her class hear the shots, and she asks student Colin Goddard to call 9-1-1. A student tells the teacher to put the desk in front of the door, which is done but it is nudged open by Cho. Cho walks down the rows of desks shooting people. Goddard is shot in the leg.
Is Goddard twisting the tragedy to suit his agenda, or are we not to believe the Virginia Tech report? It comes down to this: there was time to call 911, and there was time to barricade the door. But there wouldn’t have been time to land several good hits on Cho from concealment or cover? That sounds rife with an agenda to me, rather than a serious assessment of the situation. I can accept that Goddard’s assertion that we ought to do other things, but I don’t see any reason why students who would be able to legally carry off campus, shouldn’t be able to carry on campus.
Excellent post. I had never read the VA Tech shooting report, but you appear correct. If there was time to pull out a cell phone and dial 911 and time to barricade the door, there was certainly enough time to draw a handgun from concealment and bring it to the ready.
This is one mans opinion who never had any training, never took a class and never thought this could happen to him. Many men think differently. Planning for the unexpected, preparing and having an option.
The question I want to ask him is, if he had a weapon, would he have used it, or would he have allowed Cho to shoot him?
Is it alright to speculate that Goddard is a liar when politically (or professionally) convenient? I’m thinking perhaps saying so wouldn’t be dignified, so I won’t.
It’s a shame to see someone cheapening his life experiences by cashing them in for the chance to be a celebrity of sorts. That he’s being manipulated is clear; but that he enjoys it also seems increasingly clear. He has my sympathy as a victim, but not my respect as a “pundit,” since, as has been said here, being a victim doesn’t make you an expert in anything, other than perhaps suffering.
He’s a coward. If I had been in his shoes I would have had a knife and the will to use it. No way to predict what would have happened, but if he had been waiting inside the classroom door with a knife waiting for Cho to enter things would have been different.
Good thing we’re in PA, where it’s perfectly legal to carry a firearm on campus. You might get expelled if caught carrying, but the police can’t charge you with anything.
And another thing: I know with absolute certainty that if I had time to set up a barricade, I would have had the presence of mind to draw my firearm and wait for Cho to come to the door. Fish in a barrel.
Sebastian, once again good work Sir. Colin Goddard is just another operative, Joyce Foundation funded, on the payroll, a victim for hire hack. http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/a-look-at-anti-gun-astroturf/ and just like other victims for hire, Cindy Sheehan comes to mind, these people will damn near jump into the line of fire not to save others but to push their agenda. And why, it has been statistically proven that gun control has no bearing on crime or safety, to ban something they don’t like. Popular these days is the desire to control the behavior of others and what better way to feel good about yourself, if you are pitiful like the gun grabbers than to get something banned that you don’t like. The victims for hire justify their existence, not internally but externally through the control of others. These pitiful folks don’t see it as infringing on your rights but as justification for their oxygen addiction. They see the Consitution not as firewall between the control of government and the soveriegn person but as something that gets in the way of their self-justification. The 1st Amendment – too uncivil and people might get offended; 2nd – oh, you might hurt yourself, plus you don’t NEED to do that because I deem it un-necessary; 3rd – We’re just trying to cut the budget; 4th – Why would you object, do you have something to hide?; 5th – You do have something to hide don’t you, now tell us or we’ll beat it out of you; 6th – We will hold you until you confess and no you don’t need to speak with an attorney; 7th – No you can’t sue us because we decide civil suits too; 8th – You shall be strapped to a chair with electrodes on sensitive areas and force to watch Rachel Madow and the View until submit; 9th and 10th – Limited government powers and negative rights–you have got to be kidding right??!!
Some damn fine soldiers have had moments of cowardice. Everyone gets tired, stressed, or caught off guard. Nobody can know for sure how they might react to any condition black situation on any particular day.
It seems to me that Goddard won’t face the shame of his own reactions so he must instead insist that everyone else would react the way he did.
Yes, and it’s unfortunate, because there’s no real shame in what Goddard did that day. It happens, as you said, even to very good soldiers.
The shame is projecting what happened to you on everyone else and making the assumption that because you froze at the moment of truth that everyone else would as well.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/01/did-colin-goddard-really-serve.html/comment-page-1
Gentlemen, my father did ROTC and wouldn’t say he served at all.
DannytheMan, don’t you know that Colin Goddard was a “veteran” and an experienced hunter?
http://armaborealis.blogspot.com/2011/01/quote-of-day-in-army-now.html
It is kind of funny that even the anti-gun lobby needs to burnish their shooting street cred, kind of like politicians who grab a duck gun and go hunting every few years before an election.
Moreover, Colin is a victim. That means that if we disagree with his political opinions or use of his personal experience as evidence, we are assaulting his Victim Hood with vicious and uncalled for personal attacks.
http://armaborealis.blogspot.com/2011/02/victims-and-opposing-views.html
This is what the anti-gun zealots actually believe, apparently. Crazy, isn’t it?
(Sarcasm alert)