Virginia Tech Shootings

[keith]

oh here is one for the statisticians on the right;

how come the murder rate (2005) in alaska is 3.692307692
( ) times that of vermont.

and with that I'm outta this.

[jBirch]

Apparently, there was a video involved and some serious pre-planning.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

James.

[dcmdale]

1. Our country has ~ 300 Million people in it. Every year 30 or 40 people die in events such as the killing at Virginia Tech...

2. I would hope my children could escape. I would hope that someone was in position to disarm or kill the assailant. Barring that, if my children had to die, I would hope that no one would post messages on a board implying they were somehow weak, unprepared or to-blame for their misfortune.

Earlier this year, some Columbine copy cat idiot *did* take a couple of shots at my daughter at her school. (Great introduction from Homeschool to Public School!). She ran. All of the students who were out there ran. I think that running from deadly danger is an innate response. It may not have been the best response: the idiot had figured that most people would run and was targeting one of the only three exits. Fortunately, he wasn't a great shot or the USFA might be down one fencer.

One of the things that really hurt the next day was the number of students who were not involved talking about the cowardice of those who were involved (and ran). (As if they wouldn't have run too).

A couple of cops that happened to be at the high school didn't run. They took the guy out after 7 shots. (Tackled him; didn't shoot him). Net result: nobody killed at the school (though he had killed his dad earlier that day).

The kind of training that jbirch is talking about is a good thing. It takes training to not respond by flight. But it isn't just "don't run" that makes up military training. The cops were successful because their training included how to take the guy out and how to get into a position to apply that knowledge. Frankly, if my daughter had tried to "do something," she probably wouldn't be here.

I can think of several examples over the last several years where trained professionals (military/police) took out a gun-toting jerk before he could do the kind of damage that this guy did at Virginia Tech. In that sense, I think that his point is appropriate. OTOH, I have no doubt that the students at Virginia Tech did what they thought the right thing for them in the context of the confusion, fear, and haze of what was going on.

[Slim]

oh here is one for the statisticians on the right;

how come the murder rate (2005) in alaska is 3.692307692
( ) times that of vermont.

and with that I'm outta this.

Huh? Ya got me.

[Shi no Tenshi]

As far as soldier training goes, I've been informed by friends in the army, navy, and national guard that the only training regarding ambushes and such is that when armed, you charge them to make yourself harder to hit and such. However, if you are unarmed, you get backup. In a building, when clearing it, you are in groups of two at T intersections and such, however, if you come up to another intersection or door, you, once again, call for backup.
That means our trained soldiers are told to be prudent in such situations and call for backup. Not charge unarmed. Yes, those police that tackled the gunman were able to take him down with numbers and tactics. However, there are no tactics involved by charging a gunman unarmed by yourself. And calling students cowards or whatever because they are not a coordinated fighting force is just blatantly pathetic.

[ZapBranigan]

Sounds like a "near ambush" scenario (i.e. trapped in a room, AKA the Kill Zone, nowhere to run or hide). A soldier is trained to charge the enemy while screaming at the top of his lungs, and killing as many bad guys as possible.

You may think it foolish to apply military tactics to a situation like this. I'm sure many may think the military's tactics in a near ambush scenario is foolish and suicidal as well. Its not. Its based on the following: 1) staying put(hiding)=dying, 2) running away (if even possible)=dying tired 3) attacking into the enemy=you get a fighting chance.

Not being a stationary target. Minimizing time in the kill zone. Making him think about playing defense. Good ideas all, IMO.

Of course, its not a natural thing for a person to charge someone trying to shoot them. In fact, our soldiers have to practice this and other battle drills so they become second nature to them. Of course it also helps if you are not alone in the endeavor.




Its not about heroics, as it is maximizing your chances at survival.

"Man, those losers who got shot shoulda been drafted so they coulda learned how to not die as easy! Dur dur dur!!!" Not everyone is trained to pretend they're Rambo. You could at least sit on your hands for a week before blaming the victims for their deaths. In the words of the great American Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, "**** you, you stupid douche." As true today as it was when it was written.

[jBirch]

Earlier this year, some Columbine copy cat idiot *did* take a couple of shots at my daughter at her school. (Great introduction from Homeschool to Public School!). She ran. All of the students who were out there ran. I think that running from deadly danger is an innate response. It may not have been the best response: the idiot had figured that most people would run and was targeting one of the only three exits. Fortunately, he wasn't a great shot or the USFA might be down one fencer.

Oh man. Talk about a parent's nightmare. Is she doing ok?

One of the things that really hurt the next day was the number of students who were not involved talking about the cowardice of those who were involved (and ran). (As if they wouldn't have run too).

Cowardice is such a nasty term. And it's always applied by those who weren't there. When crisis happens, we each respond in our own way.

A couple of cops that happened to be at the high school didn't run. They took the guy out after 7 shots. (Tackled him; didn't shoot him). Net result: nobody killed at the school (though he had killed his dad earlier that day).

Good cops.

The kind of training that jbirch is talking about is a good thing. It takes training to not respond by flight. But it isn't just "don't run" that makes up military training. The cops were successful because their training included how to take the guy out and how to get into a position to apply that knowledge. Frankly, if my daughter had tried to "do something," she probably wouldn't be here.

See this is what I have some trouble with. Assuming the cops weren't there, what should she have done? If you can run away, that's always a good plan. Run. Fast. But in the VT case, what are you to do? The cops aren't there and aren't going to be there for a while.

The brutal, cold, analytical question of parity here is:

What should your daughter have done if she couldn't run? What should she have done if the kid *WAS* a good shot?

I can think of several examples over the last several years where trained professionals (military/police) took out a gun-toting jerk before he could do the kind of damage that this guy did at Virginia Tech. In that sense, I think that his point is appropriate.

I don't think you totally caught my point. My point is that the training received by military/police professionals is not inaccessible.

In the cold light of hindsight, what tools can we give our children so that they could survive a similar situation? Are we only interested in their survival or should we teach them to do something active to protect the other children? Why not teach them how to tackle the shooter? Why not teach them to throw things and run in zigzags? Why not teach them to yell loudly what is happening so that others aren't guessing what those awful popping sounds are? Why not teach them how to duck behind a desk so they can move if the shooter comes down? Why not teach them simply how to think when under severe pressure? Why not simply give them a plan to execute when something violent is imminent?

I said earlier I teach wilderness survival. One of the classic examples is what to do when you encounter a bear. First, you classify the bear: is it protective, territorial or predatory? If it's protective, simply go around it. If it's territorial, appear meek and slink away. If it is predatory, prepare to fight with everything you have. We encourage people to take bear bangers and bear spray with them whenever they go into the woods. Simple plan and it saves lives.

One of the key things that's been brought to light with this tragedy is that the shooter had a plan and the determination to see it through to its grisly conclusion.

Equally, our children need a plan and the determination to see it through.

Keith brought up the best point earlier and that is that the real issue isn't gun control, it's how we deal with our mentally troubled people. Are there any tools you can give your daughter to help in this situation? Most of us teach our kids to stay away from the loners and the unbalanced. To ostracise, ridicule and isolate them.

Is that wise?

OTOH, I have no doubt that the students at Virginia Tech did what they thought the right thing for them in the context of the confusion, fear, and haze of what was going on.

This is the most painful comment of all IMHO. Why should they be making it up as they go? Why should they have to improvise a plan in a situation with deadly consequences for getting it wrong?

Thirty-three people lost their lives. Thirty-three. Obviously, making it up didn't work. If those were my kids, I'd be in anguish that I'd not given them the skills to survive. I can't control the shooter. I can't educate them and I can't stop them from starting their rampage. I can teach my kids something useful though.

My point is that it's not the students who were reacting that are the cowards. They were models of humanity dealing with the absolute worst. It's the people who believe in not teaching them how to deal with violence that are. It's the people who fail to pass on the lessons learned in blood.

James.

[jBirch]

Just read the article about Liviu Librescu and that's EXACTLY what I mean.

James.

[Sabresque]

In response to the reactions to my post: As a student i felt that these events were deeply upsetting and chilling. I felt it was a moment for reflection and prayers. I was upset, not because of the president's stance on gun policy (which I don't really know a whole lot about), but because of the gross political plug in the middle of his prayers and condolences just in case anyone got the wrong idea. Possibly it was "out of place" and "political" but when I read that the first time I got really angry because it was such a cold statement made in the wrong context. You'll probably going to say the same thing about me, and oh well, I feel these people need compassion and understanding, not plugs on gun control.

[introspective]

There's a good book out called Guns Steel and War and is an Historical overview of these problems - the author, [believe it or not his last name is Diamond - really speaks to social problems that come about over and over again in history. If we got rid of every single gun in the country only allowing police to have them, and only the military when they are in active duty - things would be better. I can actually remember when the police department did not carry guns in England.
---------------
As far as the President goes he's just not politically correct. He should have said that "now is the time to reform gun laws and it's time to reexamine the Constitutions 'Right to Bear Arms" clause.

In listening to his tapes of the young man who took all those lives, I was struck by several things, first his over identification with Jesus Christ - it got him into hot water - the very corner he felt he was backed into. Religion is good, but he must have become over possessive of Jesus so maybe it's best to let the Saviors be the Saviors and just satisfy ourselves with being a follower.

I was next struck by the fact that he was asked to remove his hat while other people around him apparently wore hats.

The National Rifle Association [NRA] is a powerful force and their offices are right in Washington DC - when I saw the building myself, I was shocked that it even had the right to be in Washington.

I've lived on my own for over 30 years and I have never owned a gun or a big dog I had a cat that sat in the window and looked bad. When I went back to visit my old neighborhood one of the first things I noticed was a billboard up near Lee's circle that advertised for a Gun Show - I was horrified that this is what happened to my old neighborhood.

I don't know what more can Americans say - most of us don't want guns around the house.

[erooMynohtnA]

This debate quickly went beyond the pale, and I'm staying out of it, except for this:

There's a good book out called Guns Steel and War

No there isn't.

and is an Historical overview of these problems

No it's not.

the author, [believe it or not his last name is Diamond - really speaks to social problems that come about over and over again in history.

No he doesn't.

If we got rid of every single gun in the country only allowing police to have them, and only the military when they are in active duty - things would be better. I can actually remember when the police department did not carry guns in England.

Like now?

The book is Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, it details the spread of Europeans and why they were generally more successful in conquest than indigenous people, and I don't believe you have read it.

[jeff]

Which reminds me: one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different outcomes. Every time there is a mass shooting (the small ones don't get the national attention, like the 4 people shot and killed yesterday in Queens) we have the same uproar and response: the gun control advocates call for more gun control, and the gun advocates say that we'd be better off if more people were packing heat, because someone would have picked off the nutjob (and in this thread, what seemed to me a repellent instance of "blame the victim", which may be unintended). So it was after Columbine, the Amish school killings (were the little girls supposed to have strapped Berettas - so stylish! - to their calves?), and on and on. As Vonnegut (RIP) said "So it goes".

What we need is a serious look at the problem rather than retreating to ideological on-guard lines. We should take a serious look at ourselves and wonder why we have such a dramatically higher homicide rate, mostly with guns, than comparable first world countries. After pondering that for a bit, it might be wise to think about what could be done to remedy the problem. I think the self-contradictory 2nd Amendment lies at the heart of the problem - if bearing arms is a right, it sure is an expensive one for us, with a lot of blood spilled, and no rights under law are without restriction.

Personally, I discount the idea that large populations carrying concealed weapons would reduce the violence. The rest of the first world does rather the opposite and has far better results. We can have subjunctive mood arguments of the line "if there were Normal People with weapons, one of them would have cut the murderer down". The other side of that would be lots more people carrying easily obtained weapons, and getting in traffic altercations or drunken bar arguments while packing - it's hard to imagine that overall death rates would decrease. And the idea that the school systems would teach combat training is pretty loopy. Who's going to teach that, and on what budget? The money saved by cutting fencing from Rutgers? Let's get real. If you want universal military training and a system for weeding out the unfit, reinstitute the draft.

Speaking of nutjobs: the killer was marked as being a psychiatric risk, and the university tried to have him involuntarily committed after incidents. Yet, he was able to purchase his weapons without any difficulty. I think a society has an obligation to restrict lethal weapons from nuts. There should be a hurdle to pass before getting a weapon. I like the way Peter G described it.

But, no doubt we'll just carry on as we've done, and every year or so pay the butcher's bill again.

[Inquartata]

Personally, I discount the idea that large populations carrying concealed weapons would reduce the violence. The rest of the first world does rather the opposite and has far better results.

And as you know, correlation does not prove causation. Some of those same countries have higher suicide rates than we do---I should think that THAT is a result of our having more firearms, or of the paucity of them there?

The few studies done here have tended to show that, yes, where concelaed weapon permits are plentiful crime---including violent crime---has gone down in relation to other areas. ( Uncertainty is a factor in human decision-making, and if you are a criminal, the chance that your intended victim may be armed increases your uncertainty. )

The other side of that would be lots more people carrying easily obtained weapons, and getting in traffic altercations or drunken bar arguments while packing - it's hard to imagine that overall death rates would decrease.

Fortunately we don't have to imagine. Many states have enacted concealed-carry laws, and there has been no increase in the sort of thing you are talking about. Incidents such as you posit involving CCW holders have been perishingly rare in my state, at least. ( We had 86,939 permitees as of February. )

And the idea that the school systems would teach combat training is pretty loopy. Who's going to teach that, and on what budget? The money saved by cutting fencing from Rutgers?

You do realize that schools used to have shooting programs, right? So did places like summer camps. I went to one when I was a kid. Now it would draw gasps of horror from parents inculcated with fear of guns by the media and the gun-control organizations, and teachers by "zero tolerance" policies and insurance company requirements.

There are plenty of potential teachers: Ex-policemen, current policemen, private instructors, etc.

As for budget, maybe we could get it from the same place they get the money to teach other "life skills", like driver's ed, home economics, shop class, CPR/First Aid...

If need be, we could cut a few touchy-feely classes. Yes, the left will insist that art classes are more crucial than training which could save lives, and must be funded first/instead. I am unconvinced.

Speaking of nutjobs: the killer was marked as being a psychiatric risk, and the university tried to have him involuntarily committed after incidents. Yet, he was able to purchase his weapons without any difficulty. I think a society has an obligation to restrict lethal weapons from nuts.

I agree...but how do we do it?

Currently there is only a question on the federal form one must fill out when purchasing a weapon from a licensed dealer, and a NICS check on your background. Obviously, a person intent on getting a gun for illicit purposes will not hesitate to lie on the form. ( And if he buys from a private party there is not even a form to fill out and sign. ) If your mental status or criminal background does not come up on a NICS check, the dealer will sell you the weapon.

Short of registration and licensing, which will never be acceptable, what do you suggest?

And again, the worst civil mass murders have been carried out without firearms. How do we avoid that "butcher's bill"?

[jeff]

In principle, I'm interested in "what works" - so I'm open to ideas that reduce carnage, period.

That some countries with lower homicide rates have higher suicide rates (the "depressing Ingmar Bergman countries?") is neither here nor there, as there are plenty of oither countries to choose from that are lower on both scales. Perhaps we should adjust figures for latitude and Seasonal Affect Disorder, eh?

I have no problem with funding these skills, though I think it's not likely to happen. Killing the basket weaving class isn't going to yield enough money. Raise taxes? Issue bonds? Will the will to fund this and do the job well exist after the top news story is Anna Nicole Smith again?

"Short of registration and licensing, which will never be acceptable" - I think that's part of the "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" I alluded to previously.

Yes, there are other ways to kill people, but that ought not prevent us from addressing one of the most prevalent ones.

[Slim]

What we need is a serious look at the problem rather than retreating to ideological on-guard lines. We should take a serious look at ourselves and wonder why we have such a dramatically higher homicide rate, mostly with guns, than comparable first world countries. After pondering that for a bit, it might be wise to think about what could be done to remedy the problem. I think the self-contradictory 2nd Amendment lies at the heart of the problem - if bearing arms is a right, it sure is an expensive one for us, with a lot of blood spilled, and no rights under law are without restriction.

Sorry Jeff, its not true. Unless you want to start debating what a 1st world country is and where the boundries are to be drawn. I'm sure you'll have plenty of angry Mexicans, Russians and Columbians on your hands if your not careful. And this doesnt even take into account the method of the homicides. People are going to kill people regardless of the tools. There is no correlation between per capita murder and gun control. For example, Israel and Switzerland have a similar if not higher rate of gun ownership, and look where they are on the list. Hint: Isreal didnt make the list.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/grap...-capita&int=-1

Reasons for violent crime and homicide are much deeper than just guns. Ask a Brit.

Personally, I discount the idea that large populations carrying concealed weapons would reduce the violence.

No one is advocating large numbers of people carrying. It's the fact that anyone COULD be carrying and can use deadly force if needed that makes people think twice about comitting many types of violent crime. There is a ton of evidence to support this. This one is from FBI data:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9140

You may not like who is presenting it, but it's still valid data.

The rest of the first world does rather the opposite and has far better results.

Again, not true. You're also discounting the penalties for murder and violent crimes which are typically much more severe than in the US. How about looking at truth in sentencing and more severe jail time? Ah, cruel and unusual....nevermind.

We can have subjunctive mood arguments of the line "if there were Normal People with weapons, one of them would have cut the murderer down". The other side of that would be lots more people carrying easily obtained weapons, and getting in traffic altercations or drunken bar arguments while packing - it's hard to imagine that overall death rates would decrease.

Wrong yet again. Ignore the data all you want.

And the idea that the school systems would teach combat training is pretty loopy. Who's going to teach that, and on what budget? The money saved by cutting fencing from Rutgers? Let's get real. If you want universal military training and a system for weeding out the unfit, reinstitute the draft.

Mandatory service isnt a bad idea, but for different reasons. As you try to say about gun control, "it works for our European friends, it should work for us". But in this case I agree. Unfortunately, This does nothing to help school age children. There should be a full time security person in the schools who is armed and highly trained. Most inner city schools already have security guards.

Speaking of nutjobs: the killer was marked as being a psychiatric risk, and the university tried to have him involuntarily committed after incidents. Yet, he was able to purchase his weapons without any difficulty. I think a society has an obligation to restrict lethal weapons from nuts. There should be a hurdle to pass before getting a weapon. I like the way Peter G described it.

But, no doubt we'll just carry on as we've done, and every year or so pay the butcher's bill again.

I agree. Many states ask about prior mental health problems on license applications. But of course, the ACLU wont allow any of that information to be made available, so its of no use if you want to lie about it. I'd be in favor of a years worth of training for anyone who wants a license to carrry. Most people I know that have licenses to carry choose not to. The people I know that do carry are very well trained and extremely responsible. They understand the responsibilities.

So why wasnt he removed from campus? He clearly was very high risk and should have at least been removed or "profiled". Yeah, nasty word, but it would have probably saved some lives.

[jeff]

More knee-jerk from Slim. You claim that Mexico, Russia, and cocaine-land Columbia are comparable to the US? That's absurd - our comparable nations are the UK, Canada, and Western Europe. And since you're not paying much attention, I already mentioned Switzerland and Israel in this thread. If our behavior was like theirs we wouldn't have this thread at all. As far as "ask a Brit" - compare (your link) their homicide rate to ours. The majority of peer 1st world countries have far lower gun and total homicide rates than ours, with stringent gun control - according to your own cite.

You say "penalties for murder and violent crimes which are typically much more severe than in the US". Really? We have the death penalty and larger %population incarcerated than the countries with far better homicide rates. What are you on?

You blame the ACLU for the killer's not being committed? That's absurd too. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/19gunman.html?hp "Officials Knew Troubled State of Killer in ’05" Of course he should have been removed, but blaming in on your favorite boogeyman is just silly

Having a full time security guard is an obviously good idea - and VT had more than one, didn't it?

"Asking":about prior mental health problems is far from enough. If I were a nut planning a mass murder I would leave that box unchecked. How about mandatory psychiatric evaluation as part of that year's training you advocate?

[Slim]

More knee-jerk from Slim. You claim that Mexico, Russia, and cocaine-land Columbia are comparable to the US? That's absurd - our comparable nations are the UK, Canada, and Western Europe.

You said 1st world. Are these 3rd in your view? All 3 seem pretty developed to me. 2nd world perhaps?

And since you're not paying much attention, I already mentioned Switzerland and Israel in this thread. If our behavior was like theirs we wouldn't have this thread at all.

But you quickly forget that those two examples counter your gun control argument and correlation to murders. That's convenient.

As far as "ask a Brit" - compare (your link) their homicide rate to ours. The majority of peer 1st world countries have far lower gun and total homicide rates than ours, with stringent gun control - according to your own cite.

Once again, throwing out the correlation between handgun control and violent crime and muder rates. Prohibiting handguns in the UK did nothing to stop the increase in violent crimes and homicides. They actually went up.

You say "penalties for murder and violent crimes which are typically much more severe than in the US". Really? We have the death penalty and larger %population incarcerated than the countries with far better homicide rates. What are you on?

Yes, really. Check out penalites for violent crimes and murder some of the lowest ranked countries. As I am sure you know, a huge percentage of incarcerations here are for non-violent drug related crimes, which skew the numbers away from this argument. Our silly war on drugs (I'm not being sarcastic either, its silly).

And you didnt address truth in sentencing. 20 years for armed robbery with a gun, but out in 7-10 on parole because of overcrowding and "good behavior" ? And they dont have cable TV and fitness clubs in Singaporean jails.

You blame the ACLU for the killer's not being committed? That's absurd too. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/19gunman.html?hp "Officials Knew Troubled State of Killer in ’05" Of course he should have been removed, but blaming in on your favorite boogeyman is just silly

No, I didnt. I blamed them for contributing to not being able to do a adequate background check.

Having a full time security guard is an obviously good idea - and VT had more than one, didn't it?

I was talking specifically about grammar and highschools, which are typically locked down during the day. A huge college campus is a different situation. One where a person carrying could have made a difference.

"Asking":about prior mental health problems is far from enough. If I were a nut planning a mass murder I would leave that box unchecked.

I agree. That's pretty much what I said, its useless.

How about mandatory psychiatric evaluation as part of that year's training you advocate?

Sure would. Some states and cities actually require a letter from a doctor that states you are in a "healthy" mental state.

[jeff]

In brief:

- Yes, I consider Mexico, Russia, and especially Columbia to NOT be 1st world countries. Pretty obvious to me.

- Read my earlier post about Switzerland and Israel. We have different culture than they do. So, it's not merely a (left) knee-jerk of "guns, therefore murder". If we behaved like them it would be different, but we don't. We have to work with the population we have.

- UK prohibition on guns merely a dot in a widespread change in demographics and culture. Why do you think guns got banned at all? You have your causation reversed...

- I have no argument in favor of early release. Red herring, anyway.

- You still blame the ACLU inappropriately. They had nothing to do with this. What background check do you have in mind when school officials already figured out the guy was a loon? None was needed at that point. You once again change the subject to your favorite enemy.

- We agree on the mental health checks and training. We're actually in good concurrence here, I think. Make gun ownership subject to completing these courses and not being a psychopath, but leave it open to people who can show competency (technical and mental). Getting a drivers license also requires some test of ability. It's reasonable. Then, maybe the idea of a potentially armed population doesn't sound so bad to a wider swath of the political spectrum, and then we can get the benefit of the deterrent idea that some of the people in the room might be packing. No process is perfect, but this would be an improvement.

[jBirch]

Jeff,

I'm thinking that we need to teach our kids more about how to handle the real world (maybe, only as parents and not heap even more burden on the school system to teach stuff that it really ought not be teaching). The students in VT were adults, so lets keep them seperate from the elementary schools where the kids are wee.

The security guard idea is a false blanket, I think, because there are still so many other places where people congregate. Our kids get no skills in dealing with those places and problems. The idea that we shuttle our kids from fort to fort and then turn them loose on the world one day doesn't help.

Culturally, I think guns are irrelevant to this specific problem. The problem is twofold in my mind:

1) Teaching what to do when faced with danger and how to react to extreme stress.

2) Convincing borderline insane people that mass murder is not a good idea.

I say "borderline insane" because the people committing these atrocities are generally those who could function in society up until the moment they go on their rampage.

There was an earlier argument about "speciality of skill", that if I'm driving along a road and I encounter a pot-hole I should properly call the public works department and complain. I think this attitude is part of the problem. If everyone has a speciality then anything outside of my speciality "isn't my responsibility". Which includes personal safety and the safety of my children.

I'm not comfortable with the notion that my children's safety isn't my responsibility.

James.

[jeff]

James, I have no dispute with anything you just said. We have responsibility, whether as parents or as members of society in general, and can't just say "the State will provide" or "the other guy will do it".

I would add, in this context, that acting as citizens to make sure the right governmental policies are in place to mitigate risk is a part of that obligation.