In a society which has improved in many other ways, these changes are certainly not for the better. We've gained many material things, but spiritually we are weaker and less self-sufficient and less prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and help those around us. As a people we are increasingly risk-averse and passive and indecisive. We are not as familiar with danger, react poorly to it, and expect someone else to fight our battles. The post-war generation which had their pickups parked around UT 40 years ago hadn't been brought up to expect that luxury and they were better for it. They helped stop Charles Whitman.
What would you be able to do in that same situation today? Would you be armed? Would you be willing? Would you even be asked?
In a greater sense this issue isn't really about the specific example of an armed citizenry assisting in a crisis situation. Much more simply it's a question of our willingness to be the good Samaritan or the good neighbor, to think beyond our own needs and solve problems without having to turn to the government to do it for us.
That's a quality which our society cannot afford to lose.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - zingzing
dude, you take a story about a crazy guy with access to guns shooting 47 people and come out with... "guns are good?" what?
and if you think people are infantile today... well, that's just silly. you shut up. i hate you. mommy!
whatever. in 1966, the world was a different place. people could carry guns around without killing each other (obviously not all of the time... but most of the time...). i don't really know about know. what with gang warfare and the increasingly fractured human psyche (what with all this yellow alert-orange alert-your building might crumble-shit), guns are more of a liability these days.
i think you need to rethink this one. obviously, i would. still, this comes off as propoganda, and how you twist the story around is the ultimate in "spin."
2 - Dave Nalle
Zing, if all you got out of this is that 'guns are good', you're missing the basic point, though I'm glad you're coming around on at least that aspect.
Gun ownership in America is symbolic of an attitude that people should take care of themselves and be responsible. If people can be trusted with guns then they can be trusted in other ways in society. We're losing that trust and confidence in our citizenry and that is what leads to a nanny state and a population of infantilized drones in service to that state.
These events from 1966 were just a reminder to me of how much different and better we were as people back then - Charles Whitman aside.
Even Whitman, crazy and violent though he was, shows a strange sense of responsibility and clearly wanted very much to be stopped. His lengthy suicide note is remarkable, because he understands that he's suffering from irrational compulsions and just doesn't know how to deal with it, except to ask that his brain be studied after he dies and his estate be donated to research on similiar mental illness. That is in and of itself rather intriguing.
And if, as you say, 1966 was a different world where we could carry guns around without killing each other, what made it different, and how can we return to that kind of a better, less violent world?
Dave
3 - zingzing
i certainly don't think the answer is more guns... and i don't think that the world was all that much better, oh rose-tinted one. it was just different at the surface level. life was just as messy and brutal in those days, and had more than its share of violence. and those who wanted to be nannied by the gov't were nannied by the gov't. and those who didn't, weren't. same thing today. life has not changed drastically in the past 2,000 years--we still get up in the morning, clean up, have breakfast, go off to work, come home, screw the woman, have a little leisure, go off to bed and thank our various gods that we didn't die that day. certainly, life hasn't changed much in the past 40 years.
4 - Dave Nalle
I agree that the trivial daily chores haven't changed, but I think that attitudes and personal philosophies of life have changed a great deal, and not necessarily for the better.
And again, this article isn't about having more guns. It's about the characteristics of our culture which made it possible for the citizenry to be armed and responsible.
Dave
5 - zingzing
i think attitudes and personal philosophies also have changed... but these days people are more educated and tolerant, more worldy and open-minded. people are more connected to each other in personal and non-personal ways. maybe it is that the world is a smaller place because of communications. when the world is a smaller place, you have to be more tolerant, just to get along. you are also at more personal risk, because not everyone gets along. to this little conundrum, i don't doubt that you would say, "take care of yourself!" while i would say, "it's you that i am afraid of, get that gun away from me, idiot!"
the world is more complex these days. not everyone knows each other. life was smaller, more contained back then as compared to now.
6 - Dave Nalle
I generally agree on the world being a broader, more integrated community, but that doesn't mean that attitudes towards individual responsibility have to change. They're not incompatible with a bigger, more complex world.
to this little conundrum, i don't doubt that you would say, "take care of yourself!" while i would say, "it's you that i am afraid of, get that gun away from me, idiot!"
And that's exactly the problem. It's not me and my gun you need to be afraid of. We're on your side. But because of the changes in society and the increasing dependance on government you as the typical citizen can no longer tell the difference between the armed and responsible citizen and the criminal or lunatic.
Dave
7 - zingzing
dave: "you as the typical citizen can no longer tell the difference between the armed and responsible citizen and the criminal or lunatic."
and neither can you.
as far as "individual responsibility" goes, i think that you can define that by lots of different things, not just how well we carry a gun. and i also think that one of our responsibilities is to recognize problems and deal with them. guns are a problem. there are other problems. as an individual, i feel that i do my part to make this a better world through the way i live. if we all did that, there would be no need for protection from each other. attitudes DO have to change as the world changes, they don't have to go backwards, but they do have to more closely match reality, or things will get out of hand.
8 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
I think it's interesting to note in the incident you sited as you describe it the criminal was stopped using the rifles of an armed citizenry. Not handguns and certainly not automatics. The criminal was the one with the automatic, the responsible citizenry had the rifles. The criminal needed automatic firepower because there was only one of him. The citizenry needed only rifles because there were lots of them.
You make a pretty strong case for self defense and personal responsibility. You do not, however, demonstrate that there is a useful purpose to automatic, semi automatic or explosive weapons other than to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time.
9 - Victor Plenty
This article is so clearly about so much more than guns. There are only a few people I know and trust well enough to know they'd be a resource and not a danger to the community in any crisis situation whether they are carrying guns or not. After reading this article I realize the very least I can do is strive to become one of those people.
It doesn't matter whether the crisis is one that would call for guns, or for rudimentary firefighting skills, or for first aid training, or for the ability to fill and stack sandbags against a flood. Our communities need more people who can be relied upon to defend the community against any and all dangers.
The world is not so different now than it was in 1966. What we need from our communities, and what we must ourselves be prepared to give in order to have those needs filled, has changed very little in thousands of years.
What rises and falls is our awareness of the need to be prepared to give in this way.
10 - Lumpy
Great bit of nostalgia, but haven't we already given up too much of our personal sovereignty to government and police to be able to effectively reclaim it without a violent overthrow of the existing system?
11 - RJ Elliott
In the present day, a citizen who attempted, out of the goodness of his/her heart, to assist in a situation like this would probably be arrested by the authorities and then maligned in the media as a crazed vigilante.
12 - Dave Nalle
as far as "individual responsibility" goes, i think that you can define that by lots of different things, not just how well we carry a gun. and i also think that one of our responsibilities is to recognize problems and deal with them. guns are a problem. there are other problems.
Guns weren't a problem in 1966. Rather than treating them as the problem today, wouldn't it make more sense to address the underlying changes in society and our behavior which have happened since then?
Dave
13 - Dave Nalle
I think it's interesting to note in the incident you sited as you describe it the criminal was stopped using the rifles of an armed citizenry. Not handguns and certainly not automatics. The criminal was the one with the automatic, the responsible citizenry had the rifles. The criminal needed automatic firepower because there was only one of him. The citizenry needed only rifles because there were lots of them.
None of the guns Whitman had were fully automatic. They were basically comparable to the guns which the citizens were using. The main rifle he used was the Remington 700 which is a fine rifle, but just a regular hunting rifle, not a military-type weapon. I've got a comparable deer rifle.
Dave
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
This was an excellent and informative article.
I had forgotten about the Whitman shootings - incidents which have become more common today in America.
But the analysis of the infantilization of American society was right on target.
Doesn't anybody understand what "have it your way!" really means? Does nobody understand the concept of extending this slogan, as Burger King did in the '90's; "Have it your way, right away!"
What Burger King did was just part of a much bigger trend in America, its infantilization, and the different attitude towards the citizen, even the armed citizen, is illustrative of this. Kol hakavod, Dave.
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
BTW,
Last night, I went to shul to listen to the reading of the Book of Lamentations, which was written by Jeremiah to describe the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, an event he witnessed. This is done every Tisha B'Av - a fast day to mourn that destruction.
At shul, several people were wearing Glocks and other pistols, and more than a few came in with sub-machine guns and M16's which are used to guard the village...
It was seeing just this kind of sight that turned off another Jew describing his Bar Mitzvah in Israel - responsible people carrying weapons. He lives in the that huge infantilized giant, the USA, and has the gall to criticize what we do here to defend ourselves.
Another casualty of the infantilization of America...
16 - Dave Nalle
Interesting observations from one of the most armed countries in the world, Ruvy. Makes me wonder about gun crime figures for Israel. Off to do some research.
Dave
17 - SFC SKI
Excellent point that far too many gun control advocates miss entirely,"Rather than treating them as the problem today, wouldn't it make more sense to address the underlying changes in society and our behavior which have happened since then?"
It's part of my profession to carry a firearm, oftentimes loaded. What minimizes the risk of doing so here is the training that each of us receives, as well as the knowledge that even a negligent (there are no accidents when handling a weapon in my book) discharge that harms no one and damages nothing will be dealt with severely. In the same manner, I believe that anyone who owns a firearm is obligated to lkearn to use it in a safe manner, which many gun owners do. For those who own firearms and are negligent in their use, they should be dealt with very harshly, it's a right to own a firearm, it also carries a great responsibility, IMO. Armed assaults should carry heavy penalties that are enforced, and illegal ownership of weapons should also be punished severely, but legal owners should be allowed to own firearms until they prove themselves irresponsible.
Ruvy, I understand that almost all Israelis (males at least) are conscripted at some point intime, so they receive firearms training. Are Israelis under any sort of obligation to get trained or licensed?
Dave's point about self-reliance is somewhat illustrated by some Israelis arming themselves. They know that they are more likely to be killed by a murderous foe long before the law shows up to save them, so they arm themselves. In certain areas of the US, sad to say, that is also the case for different reasons, why shouldn't be allowed, even encouraged to arm themselves for protection, and be held accountable if they misuse their right to carry?
Good article, it does illustrate how much times have changed. The idea that police would ask citizens to assist them is not nearly as strange as the fact that they did receive that help. In Texas, that might not be a rarity, but I could see certain areas of the country where they'd get far less support.
Without going to far off topic, isn't it a shame that so many people who have no idea of the pressures and decisons police or soldiers face in their daily lives are so quick to analyze and criticize those who have to make the decisons, as well as their decisions. This doesn't mean that either of these two shold have carte blanche to shoot indiscriminately, BTW.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
The figures for violent crime committed with guns are going up here, unfortunately. When you do your research, see if you can get ethnic breakdowns, i.e. Arab names, Russian names, (you're looking for fist names as opposed to second names here - I have a family name that is often mistaken for Russian) as opposed to the rest of the populace.
My perceptions are that Arabs and (recent) Russian immigrants use guns more freely in criminal acts than the rest of the populace. Just curious to see if those perceptions are valid.
19 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Israelis are under no requirement to get firearms training, but there is a basic understanding that weapons are for killing here.
Getting a gun can be a pain in the neck here because you need a permit to carry one. Thorough background checks are done by the police and secret police - which means that politics often interferes with who gets to carry a weapon where (geographically speaking).
Bssically, weapons must be worn so that they can be seen. Carrying a concealed weapon is forbidden - unless you are with the Shaba"k or Mossad.
I know one fellow immigrant who smuggled in his gun from the States, and who carries it while driving in Judea and Samaria. If he is caught without papers, it can mean a prison term for him.
20 - Dave Nalle
Having politics figure in to who gets a gun and who doesn't is far from reassuring. Plus I'm not terribly fond of that word 'secret police' after having lived in the Soviet Union.
Dave
21 - SFC SKI
Ruvy, interesting to know how Israel deals with gun ownership, but overall it seems pretty reasonable.
I have never been to Israel, but is it fair to say that people who live closer to the borders are more likley to be armed than those who are not? I have seen pictures of weapons stacked on the beach, in fact there was a popular picture of some female Israeli soldiers in bikinis carrying weapons, but is it the norm? I imagine it changes witht he threat level as well.
It might interest readers to know that most Iraqis are allowed to own one AK-47 and about one magazine worth of ammunition, due to problems with robbers in many areas. These are usually registered, though the problems of bureacracy make that difficult. Most Iraqis don't carry them outside their houses, for obvious reasons.
22 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave, politics figures in everything in this country, down to what milk gets sold where.
Also bear in mind that the political culture here is eastern European - the same culture that gave rise to the intellectual and political classes who started the Russian Revolution. I'm not talking about political orientation per se, like communism, socialism or capitalism, but a world outlook that cuts across ideology.
The Shaba"k has been holding up permits for guns for residents in Judea and Samaria for months now - another way of insuring they can't be armed.
23 - zingzing
dave: "Guns weren't a problem in 1966. Rather than treating them as the problem today, wouldn't it make more sense to address the underlying changes in society and our behavior which have happened since then?"
yes they were, and no it wouldn't, because guns are easier to change than society. sure, we can work on society, but we don't even know how it all happened, and, unless you are some sort of psychologist, we can barely identify what has really changed. even if we could, going backwards would destroy plenty of the GOOD changes we have seen in the last 40 years, which far outnumber the bad. an armed citizenry was an anarchronism the moment the american revolution ended. and i'm saying this as a person who despises our government. we need to move forward, not backward.
24 - John Guilfoil
Great points. Good article, Dave.
25 - Bliffle
When I was a teenager I rode a streetcar home from the sports shop with a new shotgun in a case and a couple boxes of birdshot and no one was concerned, but that was several years before Whitman.
My observation is that 3/4ths of the population is incompetent to touch a weapon. And some of those are hunters and gun owners. They are simply too careless. Typically, they wave a gun around heedlessly and are surprised when you dive under a sofa: "well the gun isn't loaded, is it?". I went through this with a wife, and I told her more people were killed by 'unloaded' guns than by loaded guns. She poopooed me but the very next day there was such an accidental killing locally. My hunting buddy and I had a very small group of guys we'd hunt with, and that didn't include his brother who almost shot his foot off being careless. Would you go hunting with Dick Cheney?