Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Media barely notice spectacular bravery in Colorado

This is Jeanne Assam. Get a sense of her. She is the heroine of the Colorado shootings.

At the moment of this photo, Ms. Assam has not slept for at least a day. Study Ms. Assam's features. Sense what is behind her eyes. Jeanne Assam is not a helpless victim.

Video of Ms. Assam speaking to the media.

The Colorado church shootings do not conform to the media's preferred worldview, insofar as a gun + refusal to cower + prayer played big roles in stopping the killer.

And not just any gun, but a gun wielded by Jeanne Assam, thus showing women do not have to be helpless victims. 

And not just any prayer, but devout prayer to the Holy Spirit. Ms. Assam prayed to the Holy Spirit to be with her. She then walked directly towards the shooter, yelling "Surrender!", firing 12 pistol shots as she moved forward. She was awesomely outgunned by a "cheap foreign" (SKS?) automatic rifle. She walked straight in, firing. She said: "My hands didn't even shake."

A Vietnam veteran, who had rushed to the chapel to see what he could do to help, witnessed Ms. Assam's assault. He said her action "was the bravest thing I've ever seen." 

Since a gun was part of saving the day; and since a woman who refused to be a helpless victim saved the day; and since prayer to the Holy Spirit saved the day; the media is not covering the event with the wall to wall coverage I would expect. Some of this will come, surely, in ensuing days. But, Ms. Assam stopped the shooter just after noon-time on Sunday. The media spectacular should've already hit on Sunday night and on Monday. It did not.

If this story had neatly conformed to the media's preferred news templates: guns used only for bad purpose; helpless victims in a cruel world - what can any of us do(?); small-minded Christianity fueling the shooter's rage ... then this story would be much larger all across the nation. Geraldo and Greta would be on site. Editorial writers would be burning up keyboards in favor of gun control + we are all helpless victims + Christianity is bad.

Instead, this story has Christian faith overcoming evil intent. This story has a woman refusing to be a victim, and picking up a gun in response to a threat, and possibly saving scores of people in the process.

The media hate a story where God, guns, and gumption are the heroes. Media non-reponse is a microcosm of media modus operandi: stories either they fit the media's preferred worldview, or the stories are minimized or ignored.

Two years ago, in Tennessee (as best I remember), a gunman with obvious bad intent carried a gun towards a university classroom building. Another student ran to his car, got his own gun, then ran back to the campus building and stopped the gunman before anyone was killed. Have you ever heard of that story? It didn't fit the media's gun-control worldview.

Guns stop a massive number of attempted crimes every year. You hear much about those stories? They don't fit the media-preferred template. 

I don't think the media can ignore Ms. Assam much longer - for she is young and blond. She will make Leno and Letterman and Larry King and Oprah and Ellen. There will be a book and a Lifetime movie. But this will mainly occur because Ms. Assam's youth and blond hair will drag the media - kicking and screaming, initially - into covering the story. Soon enough, the media will warm to the ratings potential she represents.

Slight shift of subject:
Ms. Assam attacked into an ambush, firing all the way. Whether she knew it or not, that is a solid military tactic. Ambushers expect their victims to flee. They do not expect an attack directly into their position. Ms. Assam's attack reminds that, for the last four years, when our soldiers in Iraq have been ambushed, they've turned their vehicles directly towards the ambushing fire, and they have attacked directly into the ambushes. Charging straight into an ambush requires tremendous, incredible courage - yet our military has done it again and again in Iraq. And again. Amazing courage and heroism. As I commend the Colorado heroine, with all the commendation I can muster, I want to also remember our brave military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, also, know courage. Salute - to all of you!

Final shift of subject:
I've read some personal safety "expert" advice (for whatever it's worth), pointing out that it is not necessarily the best course to be passive when being attacked or mugged. Every situation is unique. If you are attacked, you will have to make your call, for that situation, about the course of action which gives the best odds of survival. Just know that being passive is not the automatic best course of action. We've been coached, for decades, by Hollywood, et al, that we should be always be passive in such situation. Certainly we should sometimes be passive. Yet, according to what I have read, passive can easily be the worst, most life-threatening course of action. Passive is the best course of action maybe half the time. If you are attacked, you are often dealing with psychopathic, substance-altered, angry and desperate persons. Your attacker's adrenaline is up. Your attacker is not thinking clearly and calmly. Your attacker may not be interested in appreciating your gift of passivity.

There's especially one situation the self-defense people say you should never be passive about: never, ever allow yourself to be forced, at gunpoint, into a vehicle in order to be transferred somewhere else. Never do this. If a mugger wants to take you somewhere else, it is for the purpose of doing something bad to you at the other location.

In this situation, verbally refuse - and do so with defiant attitude. If you have to: fight, get shot, do what you must, but take your chances where you stand - because those are the best odds you are going to get. It doesn't matter if your attempted abductor is acting nice and reasonable as he tries to convince you to passively be abducted. If he is trying to abduct you, it is only for bad purpose. Your odds of survival only go down, down, down in a transfer of location scenario.

Larry King conducts the most incompetent, cringe-inducing interview I have ever seen. And that's saying a lot.

Ms. Assam's story is about faith and courage. Larry King has no clue. He has no sense of what Christian faith is, and it appears he has no sense of what courage is. He asks questions: How did it feel [to kill the shooter]? and I guess your life is changed forever[by the trauma of the shooting]? which are designed to allow Ms. Assam to somehow play the victim on national television, aka poor pitiful me. Ms. Assam doesn't know how to respond, because she is not a victim. Never, not for one moment since she first heard shots, has Ms. Assam considered herself a victim in this matter.

Larry King represents the worldwide leftist mindset in which being a victim is noble. In this way of thinking, victim status is always sought after - for the perceived nobility it confers on the victim.

No comments: