It's been a bad week for shootings. Last Wednesday a gunman opened fire in an Omaha mall killing 8 others and himself. This past weekend a gunman killed 4 in two church related shootings in Colorado before being shot by a church security officer. And news this morning that six young people were shot at a school bus stop.
Actually, it's been a bad year with many other mall, business, and school shootings - the tragedy at Virginia Tech this past April by far the worst.
But I'd like to focus on the Colorado shootings for this post. For me, the recent shootings in Colorado stood out for two reasons:
1. The circumstances in which the killer was stopped.
2. Possible implications regarding the entire gun debate.
1. The Circumstances
The killer in Colorado was stopped by an armed security guard in the church... an armed guard in a church? This is striking in both that it is diametrically opposed to the espoused philosophy of Christianity (What Would Jesus Do? It's safe to say that Jesus would NOT pull a Glock and pop a cap in someone's ass no matter what that person was doing) and yet simultaneously it is totally expected and accepted behavior from the "Guns and God" conservative crowd.
Here's some of what the security guard had to say about the encounter:
"It seemed like it was me, the gunman, and God," said Jeanne Assam, describing her feelings as she confronted a man who charged into her Colorado Springs church Sunday firing a weapon.....
"I took cover, and I waited for him to get closer, and I came out of cover and identified myself, and engaged him, and took him down. And that's pretty much it."
....
"I give the credit to God. And I say that very humbly. God was with me and the whole time I was behind cover -- this has got to be God, because of the firepower that [the gunman] had vs. what I had..."
Her quotes are an unsettling yet familiar mix of religious tribute and matter-of-fact gun speak.
None of this is to say that I feel her actions were wrong or unjustified. Quite the opposite, she did what she had to do to stop a killer from taking more lives and that is the right thing to do. It's simply that the stark dichotomy of the situation made an impression on me.
2. The Implications
Much more significant than that dichotomy, is what this event says, or might say, about the entire gun debate.
Almost any time there is a shooting, the gun advocates come out of the woodwork with the same mantra - if everyone was armed this wouldn't have happened. Or, if something did happen, the body count wouldn't have been as high because a regular citizen would have stopped the killer sooner.
Normally I discount this talk as merely the gun advocates taking advantage of a tragic situation to further their own cause. And their argument is weak because it is almost always based on a hypothetical situation (if an armed citizen was there...).
However, this situation is much more concrete. It is a real situation where a trained, armed citizen stopped a killer before more lives were lost and is clear evidence in favor of the gun advocates usual argument. There is no "what if" in this case - something did happen and that something backs up the armed citizen argument.
So does this one incident change the overall balance of this debate? That's a high level question, so I'll stick with one that's better for me to address: does it change my opinion?
The simple answer is No. I still feel that our society is better off with less guns on the streets.
I give the gun advocates their due by agreeing that situations like this one clearly support their primary argument: that in rampage situations an armed populous would make a positive difference. While there could be some situations, primarily driven by the confusion of the moment, that many armed citizens could make the situation worse, I do believe that in most situations they would stop the killers earlier - therefore saving lives.
So why am I still against this approach? I strongly believe that a proliferation of firearms would lead to many more "one off" killings. While many gun owners are responsible, there are enough people who aren't responsible and/or don't have control over their emotions that they would pose a risk if they were armed at all times. Too many things happen on a daily basis - things like traffic altercations, romantic problems, arguments - that could set off a person. If that person is armed and not in total control of their emotions, and then the situation escalates there's a much greater chance the gun will come out.
So for the relatively few lives saved in the high profile rampages, there would undoubtedly be many more lost one-at-a-time. On balance, as a society we would lose more lives to gun violence. And to make matters worse, many of those killings would be "minor" issues that become short blurbs on local news - meaning the true impact would never be impressed upon society because these local killings would never receive the days of national attention that higher profile killings do. They wouldn't be tragic events that help focus national attention on our problems, they'd be mere statistics that get lost in the shuffle.
No doubt that this has been a bad week and we can sadly expect more. While not out of control, there does appear to be a increase in these rampage style shootings - we need to find ways to address this problem before it gets any worse. And although the incident in Colorado demonstrated a value in having more armed citizens, I don't believe that is the ultimate way to address the problem.
As much as I dislike guns, I'm not a big gun control advocate myself. This case definitely points to the value of having trained, armed professionals in public places like this. Even though it is sad that we need security guards at churches.
That line of thinking falls apart with the right to bear arms argument
To each their own however
As far as carry without a permit is concerned, pretty much nobody does 'open carry' (no permit required) since one attracts all sorts of uncomfortable stares and comments. If the weapon is illegally concealed without a permit, then we are talking about criminals, which is a whole other ballgame.
By the way, it's a similar deal to get a hunting license. I had to spend 3 evenings in firearms safety training to get mine. High standards for firearms training and education are a major priority of the NRA and it constitutes the bulk of their work (it's just the political stuff is more visible to non-members). In fact, they invented the whole idea of hunter education and firearms safety training for civilians in the first place.
Huh?
I and many others open carry a lot, like at the Chart House in Old Town Alexandria, or the Kingstowne area grocery stores, or to community meetings at the Lee & Mason District Government Centers and never get "uncomfortable stares or comments" - except maybe a pleasant "howdy whachya carryin'," or an inquisitive "Hey, can anybody do dat?"
Open Carry is nice ice breaker for friendly conversation.
Only 6 states ban open carry, and most require no permit to open carry, and neither does Virginia. The typical minimum state age to open carry is 18, like Virginia. See more at OpenCarry.org.
And open carry is not only common in Virginia, Virginia is the only state which REQUIRES open carry in restaurants licensed to serve alcohol even if the person holds a concealed handgun permit. Va. Code ยง 18.2-308(J3).
Besides, as some state Supreme Courts have held, open carry is the "right" under state constitutional right to arms provisions for which a license cannot be required, and concealed carry is the privilege for which a permit may be required.
In any event, while concealed carriers sometimes save lives by stopping crime, open carriers sometimes save lives by deterring crime. 2 sides to same coin, both have advantages and disadvantages.
What do you say we have a Raising Kaine open carry meet-up sometime??
Huh? No dick provocation at all - The Code of Virginia requires, see infra, open carry at the Chart House because alcohol is served at that restaurant.
Well, shesh!
Come on down to the Mason Government Center on Thursday at 8PM on 20 DEC - tons of folks will be open carrying at the Virginia Citizense Defense League (www.VCDL.org) meeting - there will be discussion of "lobby day" in January at the General Assembly in Richmond where many folks will walk about the General Assembly Building openly carrying handguns as they lobby for freedom.
See you there - after the meeting at about 9:30 PM a lot of use will head on over to Fuddruckers in Annandale where open carry of your sidearm is required under Virginia law.
It's no problem in these shootings if someone is armed who has been in law enforcement or the military. Those are people with experience and training in dealing with armed assailants, not just firearms training. Show me someone with merely legally sufficient firearms training, and I'll show you someone I DON'T trust in that situation in Colorado Springs.
The water rose higher and the priest climbs up on top of the alter to keep his head above the water. A boat shows up and the people in it asked him to get in. Priest says "no, God is going to deliver me. I don't need a boat."
A few hours later he's on on the roof of the bell tower. The water is about to rush up over the roof. A helicopter arrives and drops a rope with a harness to him. But the priest waves the chopper off. "God will deliver me," he said.
So the water finally rises higher and washes him off the rooftop and drowns him. The priest finds himself welcomed through the gates of heaven where he meets God. "What the hell was that?" the priest asks. "I prayed for hours for your help. Why didn't you do anything to save me?" And God says, "what are you talking about? I sent you a truck, a boat and a helicopter! And you turned them all down!"
Most every Christian sect I can think of teaches that God helps those who help themselves. He gave that security guard a trigger finger and a 2nd Amendment and the courage and steadiness to act decisively under fire. With what you are saying, one might as well stand in a pile of timber with a box full of tools and pray for a house without actually building one. Even the looniest of religious zealots knows better than that.
But thanks. Still wondering where God was when the other four got blown away.
~
And as for religious zealots knowing better than to assume everything will just be fixed for them, I bet there's a pretty big intersection between that idea and opposition to doing anything about global warming.
People have freewill
In 1997, Huckabee Delayed Bill That Referred To Disasters As "Acts Of God"
By Eric Kleefeld - December 11, 2007, 4:38PM
Here's another blast from Mike Huckabee's Christianist past. As governor of Arkansas in 1997, Huckabee held up passage of a bill to protect storm victims from insurance companies - thus creating a window of time for the companies to cancel people's coverage - on the grounds that the bill used the traditional legal term "acts of God":
The Arkansas Legislature scrambled today to rewrite a bill intended to protect storm victims after Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, objected to language describing such natural phenomena as tornadoes and floods as "acts of God."
Mr. Huckabee said that signing the legislation "would be violating my own conscience" inasmuch as it described "a destructive and deadly force as being 'an act of God.'" The Governor, a Republican, said the legislation was an otherwise worthy bill with objectives he shared.
Why should you be surprised that Christians constantly give credit to God for life and health? Christians are enjoined to praise God and give Him credit for any talents they may have. It is just a natural habit of Christians to praise God as the church security guard is quoted as doing.
Now to the gun nut part. I agree with you that gun ownership should be controlled to a much greater extent. The Bible also teaches that government is the restrainer of evil. So it is Christian to have government do the protecting rather than Libertarian vigilantes. So the church was right to have armed security guards but we are wrong as a society to make this a necessity.
While I don't claim to be expert on Jesus, his teachings that I know of are that of a pacifist nature. The notion of "turn the other cheek" being a prime example. His actions, or lack of actions, were not a "need" (i.e. your statement that Jesus did not need to defend himself) but instead an effort to teach lessons to others.
History also has many examples of Christians, the followers of Jesus, who willing gave their lives to their enemies rather than fight. Is that not in line with the teachings of Jesus?
So the dichotomy, at least to me, is that Christianity is based on the teachings of a pacifist and that I personally see a church as a place of worship AND a place of peace and refuge, yet when uninvited violence came it was likewise dispatched with violence. They couldn't be further apart - hence the dichotomy.
Your statement in the middle got me thinking
"I still feel that our society is better off with less guns on the streets"
I think a majority of people would agree with that
Heres mine
"I think our society is better off with less abortions"
I think a majority of people would agree with that as well
The reason I brought that up is because both of these issues go back to the government telling you what you can or can't do
Its just another example of how the two political parties have strange bedfellows
Heres something to think about which shows the fallacy of both views and also an argument that many make.
Even if you have the tightest gun control laws people will still be able to get guns
Even if you have the tightest abortion laws people will still have abortions
Uhoh more libertarians :-p
What we have here is a pretty good situation. We don't need everybody to be running around armed all the time in order to improve public safety. If only, say, 5% of people are walking around armed and that 5% have been trained and checked out and vetted, then I think that does the trick. You don't need everybody in the whole shopping mall returning fire all at once. Our current regulations happen to keep the total number of permit-holders quite low. Not that I believe in having an actual quota whereby people would be denied permits simply because slots had been filled. But the establishment of these basic requirements for a permit have had more or less the same effect.
As far as people flying off the handle is concerned, we do have laws on the books about where you can bring concealed firearms that address that. Namely, that you can't bring your pistol into a bar (or actually any place with an 'ABC on' permit, since VA doesn't really have bars per se). This is to prevent drunken brawls from turning into shoot-outs.
We have a system that works. Virginia protects law-abiding citizens' rights to bear arms while maintaining sensible restrictions that have prevented us from turning into the old wild west.
I am pretty sure that we have not got to this point because of gay people.
I am pretty sure that we have not got to this point because of the right to choose.
I am pretty sure that we have not got to this point
because of health care for all.
How about - we have got to this point because of the unbridled ability for the manufacture, access and available of a culture of violence.
Great idea! This is fun. Let's come up with some more total non-sequiturs and pretend that they somehow support any particular political point or perspective!
Well, so much for that approach...
Evangelical pastors are helping to create a terrible new campaign of violence against young Nigerians. Children and babies branded as evil are being abused, abandoned and even murdered while the preachers make money out of the fear of their parents and their communitieshttp://observer.guardian.co.uk...
And this is a country that has had the highest percentage of churchgoers in the world -- 89%. http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs...
(The US is at 44%. Western Europe and Scandinavia have low rates of churchgoing.)
I certainly don't know what's going on in Nigeria -- but a friend of mine lived there for some years and says it's a nasty society.
The young men who are the shooters (at schools-Columbine, Pearl, Oregon, Arkansas, CA children's center, Minn. reservation, Omaha, Colorado, ad nausem) have exhibited obvious brain disease symptoms (depression, for example). And untreated brain disease combined with easy access to assault weapons (purchased or stolen) has lead to horrific tragedies.
They can be prevented; who's going to step up and do it?
If only we weren't spending a gazillion dollars on an irrational war.
It's generally easy to spot these people. We've all met people who seemed a bit dangerous. School faculties usually know who they are. Society really has to step up, in this regard.
I think there is something else going on here. Something fishy, and I'm not talking of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. I hope we find out more, but, knowing the media, I'm not so sure we will.
BTW, CCW permit holders in Virginia often do have extensive firearms training. But not always. The requirement can vary from locality to locality.
She was initially billed as the pastor's body guard, not a plain old security guard. That struck me as more than a little odd. The pastor has a 2,000 member mega church, and he needs a bodyguard? This sounds suspiciously as though the pastor figures crazed atheists or Islamofascist terrorists are coming to do him harm because of his Christian message, and he is the target. Has he received threats? Is he (and his congregation) that paranoid? If so, are they justified? How long has he had a bodyguard, anyway. What an interesting line item in the budget, or does he pay for her himself?
Thank Heaven she was where she was at the time, a more steadfast guard couldn't have been found.
According to people who have read the killer's blog, he was bi-sexual and angry that the church had not forgiven him like it had its former pastor Mr. Haggard.
In 2002, Murray was dismissed from New Life's Youth With A Mission group for what the church describes as "health reasons." Youth With A Mission has been described as "associated with the ex-gay organization Exodus International, has been criticized by some as a 'cult' and attacked for 'brainwashing' members and promoting anti-gay messages."
I guess we'll find out more about this sad case in the coming weeks.
Hat tip to Americablog, which led me to the cite above.