Two serious shooting incidents this weekend — one at Ted Haggard’s old church in Colorado Springs, another in Arvada, Colorado — is awfully troubling. No word on motives yet, but I hope the crazies aren’t erupting into random violence against each other.
(I’m getting a lot of email about this, but really, I don’t know anything more than anyone else right now.)
ABCNews.com headlined the story with the suggestive “Anti-Religion Rampage.”
Oh, joy. Don’t be surprised if by tomorrow we’re hearing this is just another assault on Christianity in America by … who else? Evil atheists.
This is from CTV News (Canada) report…
“The assailant was shot and killed by one of the church’s security guards.”
WTF, they have ARMED security guards at church now? Is that to keep the sheep in or the non-believers out?
What’s a megachurch?
Colorado’s gun laws are pretty lax. I’d want armed security guards at my multi-million dollar megachurch too.
I heard that the one in Arvada was a man who was upset that they wouldn’t let him spend the night.
Megachurch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal Cathedral
Crystal Cathedral
A megachurch is a large church, having around 2,000 or more worshipers for a typical weekly service.[1][2]
Globally, these large congregations are a significant development in Protestant Christianity. While generally associated with the United States, the phenomenon has spread worldwide; as of 2007, five of the ten largest Protestant churches are in South Korea.[3] Most megachurches tend to be evangelical or Pentecostal, and are often semi-independent from the major Christian denominations.
@Graeme #3
A megachurch is just a big church that has thousands of members (10,000 in the case of New Life in the Springs.) Many of them have lots of amenities — coffee houses, atms, baby sitting services, gyms, etc.
They have gyms?!?
Pumping iron for Jesus.
I surely hope this doesn’t turn into some maladjusted atheist gunning down church goers. That is just the kind of publicity we need.
Here’s a link to the local Minneapolis paper with the story.
http://www.startribune.com/local/12293101.html
So sad.
As tragic as this incident is, it could have been far worse if not for the presence of a responsible, armed party capable of returning fire.
Today, four people were shot and one died. At Virginia Tech, where guns are banned on campus, 32 people were killed and the killing only stopped when the perp shot himself.
-jcr
I surely hope this doesn’t turn into some maladjusted atheist gunning down church goers. That is just the kind of publicity we need.
Michael – Sarcasm can be hard to recognize in written form, so I don’t know if you’re joking.
But anyway, no way it was an atheist–when was the last time you heard of an atheist doing anything remotely like that?
Mr. Randolph, don’t make a STUPID gun rights argument. Please be intelligent in your arguments.
Dear John C. Randolph,
Chime in on the value, indeed necessity, for the extension of theuse of waterboarding as a standard police interrogation method (for those of the brown andor nonxian persuasion, at the very least), why don’t you?
You are nothing but some useless, probably dangerous, troll salivating for a police state. Your views are entirely full of shit, and America will be in danger precisely to the degree horses’ asses like you contaminate the public dialogue. Es&d.
Sincerely,
— BC
jcr – and how many petty fights on college campuses would end in bullet wounds instead of stitches and bruises? No thanks. I’ll take the long odds against a crazy gunman ever showing up where I am.
I think alot of this is people who think they have no other way to go.
Usually when the economy is this bad you see increases in bank robberies and shootings. The numbers jive.
How I wish I never had any exposure to the prosecution side of law enforcement. I learned far too much in that job.
Place your bets now: How long before “Darwinism” is blamed for the shootings?
Scott H,
Project much?
Your imagination of what you might do if you had a gun in your possession has nothing to do with how other people handle a piece of vital emergency equipment.
-jcr
I know, that was exactly what I was thinking…
I don’t think I’ve ever seen armed guards at a church before.
Unfortunatley the X-ians (and the religious, in general) do not have a monopoly on crazy. Even though I don’t think it’s likely, I’ll echo Michael’s sentiment in hoping that this isn’t the work of a couple of mentally ill athiests.
Anyone want to take bets on which right-wing pundit/minister will be the first to try and pin this on non-believers? Perhaps fueled full of anti christian rage after seeing the Golden Compass?
BC,
Blow it out your ass.
If you equate private citizens possessing the means to defend themselves with a police state, then you’ve got your head so far up your ass there’s no hope for you to ever dislodge it.
-jcr
As a resident of Colorado Springs, I can tell you why NLC has armed security. Does anyone remember the last time a man with a gun walked into a church in your city and opened fire? It’s happened here before, at Focus on the Family.
This is a very religious city, we are home to the headquarters of 37 major Evangelical organizations. And we also have a lot of soldiers coming home from the Middle East, men and women who have not had their mental health seen to. I’m personally surprised that there have no been more shootings around here.
JCR:
What requirements (including restrictions) would you consider it acceptable and prudent to impose upon people carrying weapons into places such as college campuses?
gwangung,
If you’d like to try arguing the point, then please do so. This crime in progress was stopped by a responsible armed citizen. The Virgnia Tech massacre was not. The Long Island Railroad attack was not. In Israel, the perps switched to long-range attacks with rockets instead of trying to shoot up shopping malls, because the armed citizens there typically dispatch an attacker before he’s killed even a handful of people.
Trying to disarm the population discards the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people.
-jcr
Based on what, the fact that people never go crazy with guns? Oh wait a minute…
Obviously this is zod’s punishment for something someone did.
Azkyroth,
Liberty, including our right to self-defense, does not need to be justified. Rather, if you seek to restrict a person’s ability to defend himself, then the burden of justifying that measure lies with you.
“Gun free” zones are a failure, since anyone who wants to do harm to another person isn’t going to be stopped by a sign. All they can do is prevent a law-abiding citizen from being prepared for an emergency.
-jcr
Perhaps God’s testing the faith of these congregations?
Maybe he’s punishing them for voting republican?
Or could be that this is the inevitable consequences of poor gun control and a broken public mental health system.
Whatever the cause, it’s sad
Heather,
I didn’t remember the attack at Focus on the Family, and it’s not jumping out at me from a google search. Can you remember when it happened?
Now, despite my many points of disagreement with Ted Haggard’s church, I will give credit where credit is due: they did the right thing for the safety of their members and visitors, and the guard who killed the perp is a brave man who did his duty. I know he’s going to have a hard time coming to grips with what happened today, and I hope he gets the support he deserves from his community.
Any organization that regularly holds events where hundreds or thousands of people attend would do well to follow NLC’s example of emergency preparedness.
-jcr
Chris,
When a nut is shooting, the thing you need most of all is a rational person trained, equipped, and prepared to return fire. The police simply can’t be everywhere at once, and relying on them for your safety, and that of the people around you is simply irresponsible.
-jcr
We have a lot of comments from people who don’t know anything about what happened, why it happened, or who did it and why.
This is a case for just waiting to find out some facts.
This is no time for pointing fingers where nobody knows anything about what transpired.
tintenfisch,
Wow.. Are you going for some kind of record of just how snotty you can be in making light of a murder?
-jcr
Or could be that this is the inevitable consequences of poor gun control and a broken public mental health system.
And probably more of the latter, given how poorly we treat our vets coming back from war. Really, training people to use high powered weapon then abandoning them to mental illness seems like a piss-poor idea in the big scheme of things. Heck, even in the small scheme if things.
I don’t believe that’s the answer to the question I asked.
Saw the 2 shooting locations in Colorado earlier. The familiar tragedy pattern, lone gunman shoots up a place for no apparent reason. We already had 1 mall shooting this month in Nebraska.
No ID yet on the gunman or why, although he apparently was shot by an armed guard at the New Life church.
He targeted Xian churches.
The Moslems are hoping he wasn’t a Moslem.
The Jews are hoping he wasn’t Jewish. He was wearing a “skull cap” whatever that is.
The evolutionary biologists are hoping he wasn’t a biologist.
The atheists are hoping he wasn’t an atheist.
The Xian are hoping he wasn’t a Xian. Somebody burned down a fundie church near where I used to live. It was the teen aged son of one of the members who had some issues with the church.
The whites are out of luck as he was described as “white”.
Whatever his affiliations and supposed motives, really, he was just some looney. These people target areas where crowds gather for flimsy excuses no one rational buys. We will know more soon enough and then the axe grinders can sharpen their blades.
WTF, they have ARMED security guards at church now? Is that to keep the sheep in or the non-believers out?
Armed guards are for “anti terror” protection. AKA to keep the Evil Muslim Hordes (TM) out.
Molly, NYC
Yes, I am being sarcastic about this being the kind of publicity we need. I have never heard of an atheist doing something like this, but when that kid in Europe went on a school shooting in the name of survival of the fittest I’m sure that was quickly associated with atheism.
Just because one claims to be an atheist does not mean they are well adjusted, rational, moral individuals.
Apparently the attacker was shot and killed by an armed member of New Life’s security staff.
Because nothing says “turn the other cheek” like staffing your Sunday services with armed security guards.
Wow.
Here is the only free article I could find.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=438
My previous comment was for John.
How many hijack-the-thread posts is this JCR allowed before being scolded by moderation for distracting rather than contributing to the thread? It’d be best for him to wipe off the spit: it shows.
The Colorado shooting was stopped because the assailant was clearly identified and could be targeted easily. This was not the case for Virginia Tech and could not be; in a chaotic situation, with no clear idea of who the assailant would be, armed individuals could quite easily target the wrong individuals. (Different situation if the armed citizenry are coordinated and can easily communicate with each other)(and don’t you think that IDing the shooter would be a bit easier in israel as well?).
All you’re offering is ill-thought out slogans with barely any thought given to tactics. I expect better out of you.
Actually, I believe s/he was making a point about the behavior wingnut Christians usually engage in after something bad happens to someone else.
I’d at least like to see him explain first how he thinks the response of a trained and (as I understand it, licensed and regulated, unless churches get an exception or something) security professional vindicates his apparent argument that everyone and their dog should be able to own handguns and take them everywhere without restriction.
This crime in progress was stopped by a responsible armed citizen.
No, you did not. What part of “security guard” don’t you understand?
“All you’re offering is ill-thought out slogans with barely any thought given to tactics”
Excuse me? Didn’t you start this “discussion” by calling me stupid?
I’ve thought about this issue quite a bit, and if you can avoid the ad-hominem, I’ll discuss it with you. If not, then fuck you too.
-jcr
Graculus,
Is it your contention that the security guard was not a citizen? Got any backup for that speculation?
-jcr
“It’d be best for him to wipe off the spit: it shows.”
Well now, there’s a reasoned argument! It’s about what I got used to when PZ and I used to play whack-a-mole with the astrologers in sci.skeptic.
-jcr
“nothing says “turn the other cheek” like staffing your Sunday services with armed security guards.”
The doctrine you’re ridiculing is about responding to insults. It’s not incumbent on a christian to stand by and do nothing while a criminal murders innocent people in front of you.
-jcr
Is it your contention that any random person on the street will have the same training, legal and psychiatric requirements, and ability to hit the actual offender and not some random bystander as a security professional?
Not to jump in here but to become an armed security guard in Colorado Springs, you are only required to take a one day class and qualify on the target range.
” the actual offender and not some random bystander”
The numbers show that citizens do at least as well as cops in shoot/don’t shoot decisions.
BTW, I see you didn’t answer the question.
The security guard is one example of a responsible armed citizen. I have several friends who are not security guards who are also responsible armed citizens. Do you actually believe that it’s better to be helpless?
-jcr
Several first-hand accounts here:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
-jcr
Well, I’ve just lost confidence in cops.
Molly, #12:
Last month, when a Fin shot and killed nine people at his high school. He was an atheist, and it even appears that he claimed to be motivated by some confused ideas about natural selection.
If the shooters were religious, nutbags will trot out the No True Scotsman and blame secular influences. If the shooters were not religious, nutbags will trot out the non sequitur that irreligion somehow motivated these acts. Even if such misguided proclamations weren’t foregone, fretting over the PR implications for atheism is, well, not the kind of PR we need for atheism.
Regarding guns, if we were all fine, upright citizens, arming the population would be an excellent deterrent to such crimes, and an excellent means of minimizing casualties when they did occur. However, I suspect we would have many more people shot arguing over parking spots at Wal-Mart every year than we would save from marauding gunmen. Hell, if everyone had a firearm, I’d guess that accidental discharges alone would inflict more harm than that caused by our base level of public shooting rampages. Maybe I’m wrong; would be interesting to see some relevant data.
That’s terrifying.
1) what numbers, from what source?
2) how does their aim compare?
Do you believe that legal measures should be in place to restrict possession of guns to responsible citizens? You implicitly disclaimed this position above.
Or do you, as you seem to, simultaneously believe that everyone on earth can be trusted with a gun, and yet that people are in enough danger from their fellow citizens that they have a good reason to arm themselves?
The problem with just one guy shooting up a church is that it’s just one guy. One guy isn’t really a religion.
Now if you get seven guys and put them in an airplane, that’s religion.
You can get anything you want, at Mohammed’s restaurant…
Another free article.. seems to be linked to the anti-gay crazies.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/12/120907shooting.htm
JCR,
The minuscule number of major shootings that would be prevented by restricting gun ownership come nowhere close to outweighing the number of crimes of passion and other crimes whose danger of death of the victim is dramatically reduced by restricting gun ownership.
That article is a lot of supposition, making a tenuous link between Youth with a Mission and two shootings that most people think are not connected.
Not to be the Devil’s advocate, but of course a gay news website is going to claim something related to the ex-gay.anti-gay movement.
Deciding to carry a weapon is a serious choice. One you have to be mentally prepared to do. I chose to, and am possibly alive because of it. Ever look a guy with a knife in the face, a guy that was seriously enraged? This was several minutes into the incident. Yes the cops had been called. No, they never showed up.
I’ll give the officer who interviewed me later points for apologizing for that. At least he was not interviewing me in the hospital.
There have been three incidents in my life where I was very glad the option was available. Once in the deserts of southern Arizona, once on a city street in Tucson, and once on an Alaskan beach. Never had to fire.
The fact a church felt the need to have armed guard speaks much for the controversies and very heightened emotions that surround religion.
I for one would not be surprised that religion did play a part in the gunman’s motives. The emotional pressures that religion exerts people are perfectly capable of creating a person capable of doing anything, self immolation, self detonation, of walking into a church and shooting the innocent who just get in the way. If he was religious or non-religious the true motives may be wrapped up in that choice and the pressures he felt to become the other. Just my guess.
As the above posters note this will play out in each media arena exactly as those writing or speaking want to spin it. We may learn more, but long after the media spin has been applied and had it’s effect.
JCR, you’re undercutting your argument right out of the gate. An armed security guard is presumed to be a professional, with proper firearms and identification training. (Whether this is actually true is another story, but I digress.) Those people are the people that should have guns.
One can argue beyond that, but the simple fact is that this is only an argument for having armed security in an area where violence is possible. (I’d argue that in a megachurch where passing the plate could lead to 6-figure receipts any given Sunday, this is one of those situations.) This is still not by any means an argument for allowing any arbitrary citizen to have a gun, and has no bearing on concealed carry, what is a permissible weapon, what the criteria are for allowing it, or whatever.
Jason,
Major shooting sprees are rare, and we can all take some comfort from that fact. What’s much less rare though, are muggings, burglaries, stalkings, etc. A gun is something you need in an emergency.
Besides emergencies, there is one other critical reason to maintain our right to keep and bear arms, and that is that a government has a different set of options available to it when the people are armed, than it does when the people are unarmed.
When we delegated powers to the federal government in the constitution, we were careful to explicitly reserve certain rights to the people, and giving up the right to self-defense is suicidal. Even if you think that the present administration is looking out for our best interests, by giving up the right to bear arms, you must trust *all future governments* to be benign.
-jcr
Brian,
Your position presumes that a right originates with permission from the government. When you say “should we allow people to own guns?”, I ask “should we allow government to prevent it?”
The anti-gun position has failed to convince me, for several reasons. First, I have been to a shooting range, and discovered that firing a gun didn’t fill me with homicidal rage. (Gee, maybe the gun is actually an inanimate object.) Secondly, I’m a member of several readily-targetable minorities (jews, atheists, people earning above the median income), and the historical examples of how unarmed minorities are treated by governments or mobs in the worst of times tells me that I’d better keep alert. Thirdly, in states where concealed carry rules are in effect, crime rates drop. (It doesn’t take a whole lot of people actually carrying to shift the risk profile enough for many would-be muggers to change their minds.)
But as for who should or shouldn’t have guns, I submit that the people who shouldn’t have them are going to get them anyway, and the only thing that gun control laws can do is prevent the people who should have them from getting them. By definition, a gun control law only affects law-abiding people.
-jcr
Silicon Owl,
Very interesting post. From what I’ve read, your experience of using a firearm for self-defense is typical: brandishing it was sufficient to deter an attack. I’ve also heard many anecdotal accounts of the sound of a pump-action shotgun chambering a round causing intruders to flee.
As for the police, it’s been established in several cases that they have no legal obligation to show up at all if you call for help. If I ever face a situation like you did, I’d much rather have a gun than a telephone for self-defense.
-jcr
First, a response to the crimes of passion issue is in order.
Second, a response to the accidental shooting issue is in order.
Third, a response to the professional training vs. random person issue is in order.
Fourth, let me repeat my request for citations for the statistics you claim in support of your argument.
I have often wondered how many such incidents actually occur. Law enforcement and media usually get involved only after shots are fired. What is the ratio? 2:1? 5:1? 10:1? Probably no way to know for certain, but the answer does bear on the debate.
And fifth, do you have any information to back up your implicit claim that the number of people who will illegally acquire handguns, in the event of a ban, and thus be more dangerous since the law-abiding portion of their targets are unlikely to be armed, is vastly greater and more threatening than the number of people who are generally law-abiding but have been, on one or more occasions, in a state of intoxication or extreme emotionality such that having a weapon in their possession would have been very likely to lead to one or more needless shootings (I’m willing to bet this describes at least 10-20% of the population if we restrict it to adults; probably vastly higher if we include minors).
jcr, what exactly is government for? While owning a gun is not going to send someone into a homicidal rage, it certainly isn’t the case that everyone can be trusted with one. Guns are dangerous. They are designed to kill. If the government’s job is to maintain civil order, than it should make sense that part of that job is to make sure that deadly force stays out of the hands of the violent and unstable.
I’ve no problem with giving guns to those who need or provide protection. A woman who knows she has a stalker, a cop and/or security guard, an air marshal, someone who lives far away from reasonable emergency service access, a National Guard member, maybe even an ambulance driver in a tough neighborhood. I don’t really have a problem with hunters having guns either. But the simple fact is that unfettered gun access leads to an arms race between the troublemakers and those who have to defend themselves. Easy access to guns enables the violent and the vigilante and gives the untrained a chance to cause even more chaos in a difficult situation.
I return to my original point: you’ve made a good argument for having highly trained law enforcement and security. You haven’t made a case for universal gun ownership.
This is all very interesting. In Australia semi and automatic rifles were banned after the Port Arthur Massacre. I tend to see the fairly cavalier way weapons are handed out in the US as a little ludicrous.
JCR, one of your posts had to do with the possibility of armed rebellion in the event of the government becoming some sort of malicious dictatorship (I assume thats what you mean when you say it isn’t benign). Assuming the government has all the powers of a regular military or police state, do you think the untrained US citizenry really has the slightest chance against your own military, arguably the most powerful in the world? I’m pretty sure you’d get your arses kicked.
JCR seems to be missing another detail. How many of the guns used by criminals have been stolen? Putting a gun in every nightstand will simply mean that every successful burglary will put more guns out onto the street. And I’m sorry, but when a mugger has a gun in your face and is demanding money, it’s a little late to reach for your piece.
Self-protection is a right, I agree. There are times where being armed may be appropriate, and there are people in situations that should be armed for their protection. However, if gun ownership and concealment were unregulated, I’d probably never leave the house again. There’s people in my middle class, largely retiree neighborhood that I wouldn’t trust with a pointy stick, let alone a firearm. If people have to prove themselves capable of handling a vehicle, then certainly such a test for an object explicitly made to wound or kill is reasonable. And look at how poorly and irresponsibly so many people handle cars. Presumably they all passed an examination at some point. Gun ownership without serious regulation and stringent requirements is a recipe for disaster.
Thanks guys…
Re. anecdotes about the sound of chambering a round causing perps to flee: yes, I saw that movie too.
The people of the US no longer need to all have a musket handy in case the British try an invasion. These days we’re more into Strictly Come Dancing.
Perhaps JCR would also like to address the example of democratic states in Europe that have gun control laws that he would regard as being “suicidal”, but which have not yet succumbed to tyranny?
It makes me think that public investment (and not in the money sense) in a free and democratic system is more fundamental in maintaining liberty than an armed populace.
I am from over here in nice, safe, knife carrying, Scotland looking at this discussion and finding the blithe comments about everyone, or even civilian security guards being armed completely beyond my cultural milieu.
I really wish some of you could see yourselves from the p.o.v of the rest of the world. We don’t have your problems (outwith South London and various highly deprived estates) because we don’t have guns to shoot each other with. Here in the UK ownership of a handgun is illegal, period. Thomas Hamilton, the guy who shot little kids and their teacher dead in Dunblane did for them. The argument went like this: he would not have been able to blithely walk down the street carrying a couple of rifles. You may call that naive, but we have not had another incident like it.
Here people get knifed, some of them die, often unintentionally, not everyone knows as much about anatomy as I do. I have never been threatened by a knife but then I do not frequent the central city late on Friday and Saturday nights. I have been threatened with a bottle, but the threatener realised when I was not intimidated that I was younger, bigger, fitter and considerably more sober than he was. He decided to be my friend after that…
If, reason forbid, I ever really lose my rag with my wife the last thing I want to be at hand is a firearm. They are far, far too final, and impersonal. To do you in with a knife or batter you to death I must get personal, must feel the impacts too. That is a harder thing than to point an instrument and push a lever.
Death by firearms is directly related to rates of gun availability. Why do the Swiss have the highest rates of firearm murder in Europe? they have a citizen military and all men of military age are required to keep their equipment, including rifle and ammunition at home. The rest of Europe does not have anything like the same rate.
The right to bear arms thing in your constitution has warped your priorities. Does it not also say you have the right to life? As others have said an armed citizenry no longer has a serious chance against a modern military. So it can no longer be about that. I think you need to seriously ask yourselves what it really is about then.
If I do not own a gun I cannot shoot you and if you do not own a gun you can’t shoot me. It really is that simple.
And so it begins…
And who is behind it all? Al-Qaeda! Deviously disguising themselves as white people, no less!
#55: “Last month, when a Fin shot and killed nine people at his high school. He was an atheist, and it even appears that he claimed to be motivated by some confused ideas about natural selection.”
His atheism doesn’t seem to be more than lip service. He described himself as “a cynical existentialist, antihuman humanist, antisocial socialdarwinist, realistic idealist and godlike atheist”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting
But then, he had been a victim of school bullying for years. There is an old saying: “Beware of patient man’s anger.”
#55: “Last month, when a Fin shot and killed nine people at his high school. He was an atheist, and it even appears that he claimed to be motivated by some confused ideas about natural selection.”
His atheism doesn’t seem to be more than lip service. He described himself as “a cynical existentialist, antihuman humanist, antisocial socialdarwinist, realistic idealist and godlike atheist”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting
But then, he had been a victim of school bullying for years. There is an old saying: “Beware of patient man’s anger.”
Once I was in Las Vegas, New Mexico. It was late evening and dark. My wife and I had just eaten in a restaurant and were leaving. Our car was parked considerably far down the street in a circular city park area.
Very shortly after exiting the restaurant a young, disheveled man wearing no shirt turned after us and began following us down the street. He closed on us and, from the corner of my eye, I saw him pulling a knife from his waistband. I had a .22 Beretta in my pocket and, as I saw him make his move, I told my wife to duck then, as loud as I could make it snap, I disengaged the safety on the pistol and began to withdraw my gun from my pocket. This sound and action alone were enough to send the misguided chap exiting stage left and down the alley where, I assume, he originally had planned to take us.
I was very glad for my concealed permit at that point, I must say. You would have been too, had you been in my position, no matter what your philosophical leanings are about gun control.
Have the people at the church and the missionary center started praying yet?
If so, for what?
Why did their god let this happen in the first place? If it was just to teach them a lesson in humility, god has made his point and can now restore them. Even if god was absent because of hangover, it could surely correct the mistake.
Peter Ashby:
Thank you for pre-empting my post. I too live in lovely knife-wielding Scotland (though Edinbugh, something in your post leads me to think you live in Weegie-land!). However, I will take a knife over a gun any day. For one, I can run away from a knife (hoping my assailant isn’t an expert knife-thrower!). Me being the young un I am, I have been out on the town (not just Edinburgh, but Glasgow, Nottingham, London, Bristol, Brighton) and have NEVER been threatened with a knife or anything else.
Having people allowed to own guns scares the bajeezes out of me. People living in the wilderness of Alaska need guns, people living in highly populated areas do not. The Dunblane massacre taught us that. When will Americans realise this? Unfortunately I have been unable to find statistics to back this up (damn me having to do work!) but I believe the incidence of accidental shootings far outranks the incidence of a gun being used to shoot a criminal.
jcr,
I guess your right-to-bear-arms reasoning needs to be considered from the point of view of the US socio-political context. Your arguments certainly do not make sense in the rest of the developed world, where deterence of gun crimes does not require the arming of the general public. Once, when I visited Phoenix, a wedding was interrupted by a drive-by shooting after which the wedding party returned fire from the steps of the church. If that’s your ideal of an acceptable social system, then good luck with it. The rest of developed world will just have to get by with gun control and the considerably fewer gun crimes that are a result of that policy.
ChemBob, I don’t think anyone is disputing that widespread gun ownership saves some lives and wallets. The question is whether, on balance, it saves more than it costs.
Although it is true that all men who serve in Switzerland have a gun at home, it seems to be a little more complicated than that. I know that we have here in Switzerland a relatively high number of deaths through firearms but most of them are suicides as far as I know.
It is true though, that in general there is a strong gun culture here and firearms are easily available. For your military rifle you get little ammunition that is sealed for storage at home. Rifles involved in shooting incidents are usually bought over the counter because that seems to be easier anyway.
I would be interested in the statistics you are referring too, as there is a big debate going on now in Switzerland and usually they claim that the murder rate with military guns involved is comparably low (which I find counter-intuitive but might be true).
jcr,
I find the idea of granting every single person who asks for a gun a weapon to be beyond terrifying.
I’m a highschool student. Twice in my highschool career there have been large fights outside my school. Both times students from another school showed up with pipes to try and beat the hell out of students from my school (and my school’s in the quietest neighbourhood in the city!).
Fortunately teachers were able to intervene in both cases and break up the fights before anyone was seriously hurt.
Now, imagine that situation if both sides had had guns.
Half the students, minimum, would likely be dead, and so would be a few teachers.
The problem with guns is that you cannot subdue someone with them. As soon as you’ve decided that your weapon is going to be a gun, then your only way of stopping someone else is to kill them, and their only way to stop you is to kill you.
In addition to brawls getting out of hand, imagine what would happen with riots! Rather than police wading in with riot gear and slowly subduing people, you’d need to evacuate the city and call in the military to shoot and kill everyone involved, because you sure as hell aren’t going to be able to stop them any other way.
I rather doubt that the ability to threaten a mugger is really going to make up for the mass deaths that will happen as a result.
Graculus,
Is it your contention that the security guard was not a citizen? Got any backup for that speculation?
-jcr
Is it your contention that the police are not citizens?
Then, by your logic, the citizens can excercise their right to self-defence via the police.
BTW, jcr is getting his stats on brandishing, concealed carry and crime, etc, from John “the dog ate my homework” Lott.
For any anecdote where someone says that they prevented a crime with their gun, I can come up with one where a crime was prevented without one. The plural of anecdote is not data, and the fact remains that the rest of the Western world has lower crime and murder rates than the US. I don’t believe that the high rates are caused strictly by the availability of guns (especially handguns), but it certainly looks like a feedback loop from here.
This may bring down the wrath of the FSM but I do recall another church or two that had guns, does anyone remember WACO or Jonestown? Granted, Jonestown only had a few armed guards that shot Congressman Ryan, and WACO only had enough guns for the congregation but they did have them. So the question remains, do we really need armed churches?
Close Maxi, I was hatched a mite south of Weegie land and to my ear Rab C speaks the Queen’s English. But I am currently in Dundee and was threatened with a bottle (unbroken) here a few years ago. I was just able to understand him ;-)
I was actually being gallant, it was not long after 9/11 and at the bus stop old scrote began to harangue the young moslem woman next to me, calling her a terrorist etc. I got threatened when I intervened on her behalf. Fortunately he did not board our bus. I got a nice smile from the lass though.
Note to our friends over the pond, my use of public transport should not be taken to mean I was or am in straitened circumstances. Lots of people ride buses here and I must say our bus service is very good. Well worth its socialist public subsidy ;-)
Don Quixote I don’t have a source for the Swiss stats, it is one of those things that stick in the mind as it is an exception, like you not being part of the EU. It may indeed be that it was death by firearm including suicide. Or it may also be true that your gun culture of which the military weapons are only part, is the real culprit.
Mind you I have never felt the slightest bit unsafe in Switzerland, not wondering either Zurich or Geneva late at night. I remember dining outside in the old town in Zurich one night with colleagues and Switzerland had just won a football (soccer) game. The bars emptied and the street was filled with inebriated Swiss football fans in very high spirits. Not even then did I feel threatened. How can you feel threatened by happy people?
I also had my German grammar corrected by a beggar in Zurich, I was trying to tell him I did not speak German in an attempt to pretend I did not understand what he wanted, but I mangled it. My wallet was threatened just afterwards, by the cost of the can of coke I bought…
Love it.
Zurich: The city of pedantic beggars.
My church has security guards during services because it is located in a high-crime area.
I’m not familiar with the locations of the shootings, but I doubt they were in high-crime inner cities.
Very thoughtful post, GDwarf (#86) and I’m glad to see you are evidence against the old timer rant that high school students these days can’t write.
John,
A fire extinguisher is a vital piece of emergency equipment. A first-aid kit is a vital piece of emergency equipment. A gun is for killing.
You’re so full of fucking crap on gun control and an armed citizenry that there is little point in arguing with you. But, for the record, every credible study points to an increase in violence and death as people forgo simple assault for deadly assault. Let’s look at the gun deaths for children as compiled by a neutral source – the NIH:
(1)In America, more children die from guns than HIV, cancer and pneumonia COMBINED.
(2)In America the rate of death from gun and gun violence in CHILDREN is TWLEVE TIMES HIGHER than in 25 European countries (which regulate guns much more strictly) COMBINED.
(3)In America, kids are 16 times more likely to be MURDERED by a gun than in European countries.
(4)In the 1980’s and 1990’s, over 90,000 children were killed by gunfire.
As we can see, the availability of guns to children leads us to an incredible death-rate amoung our children who, as we’ve seen so many times, fly off the handle and settle their disputs by killing their opponent. So, just as our children teach us, the solution isn’t “more guns.” We HAVE more guns. And we die and we die and we die and idiots like you think the solution is “more guns.”
When you die, I hope like hell you die slowly from a gut-shot so you can reflect on your stupid life. It’d be poetic justice. Or, in other words, fuck off you moronic, lying troll.
On the subject of Switzerland it appears that their overall homicide rate is slightly higher then, say, Germany yet gun homicides area actually lower. I highly doubt people would commit crimes with government issued weapons…that would be somewhat counterproductive if you want to get away with it. So a large portion of gun deaths are indeed suicides and accidents…which all together account to a meager 1/2 of the gun death rate in the USA
Shelley: I’m not sure what’s happening this morning, other than the police had a search warrant last night for a house nearby one of the shootings, but I can say that Arvada is a fairly small town. The area where New Life is is near the Air Force Academy – one of the “nicer”/more affluent areas of CoSprings.
Not dealing with the pro-gun crazy trolls today…
jcr:
Indeed. And who is it who is most at risk for these kind of violent crimes? Those who live on the street, who do not have the safety of housing. That’s why there is a charity that helps these most vulnerable people exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. It’s called Arm the Homeless. I urge everyone here to give to it so that you can ensure that it is not just well-off white people who can practice the rights so wisely recognized by the Founding Fathers, but that literally anyone, including panhandlers and drug addicts, have access to this vital tool of freedom. I’m sure that, for example, ChemBob’s “young, disheveled man wearing no shirt” could have benefited greatly from having a donated gun and sufficient ammunition, rather than a mere knife.
Tulse,
I worked for a number of years in a city well-known for its poverty and high crime rate. My co-workers and I became familiar with the local street people. The vast majority had substance abuse, mental problems or both. We learned which we could rely on to be reasonably rational (as opposed to those who were clearly disconnected from reality). Even those we felt were relatively trustworthy occasionally succumbed to whatever problems they were experiencing and became violent – verbally and/or physically.
Giving guns to these folks doesn’t seem like a positive. Beyond anything else, they would immediately become targets of the local police force.
Your suggestion is beyond foolish.
Shelley Angeline #99
I have a sneaking suspicion that Tulse’s post contained some sarcasm.
The latest report here in Colorado is that the “armed guard” who took out the shooter at the church was a woman volunteer.
I don’t want to think about a mall full of women and children and 10 or 15 overexcited armed citizens taking pot shots at each other while the shooter disappears.
I should have clicked on “Arm the Homeless” first.
I’m glad this is a parody.
By the way, I’m in favor of gun control for everyone, not just the marginalized.
Sorry; I still claim hypocrisy. If your parishioners’ mortal lives are of such importance that they require a full-time armed guard, perhaps they should consider a less lethal choice of weaponry. Killing the poor disturbed fellow on the spot may be an effective strategy for self-preservation, but it is a very ineffective means of ministering to the assailant.
Steve,
The guards are necessary because the police are understaffed, overworked, underpaid and overwhelmed.
Since you’re from Michigan, perhaps you’re familiar with the situation in Detroit? Or are you one of those people who are only familiar with the exurbs?
The presence of the guards alone is enough of a disincentive to discourage crime. No guns have ever been drawn (and no one has ever been threatened with one).
I don’t recall Jesus using weapons…I wonder what He would do?
I was actually just relaying my own experience as a reality-based anecdote, rather than a theoretical, fwiw. I’m actually pretty conflicted about the whole gun issue, whereas on most things I think I have fairly reasonable and logical underpinnings for fairly strong opinions.
I’m inclined to agree that if no one had guns, we’d all be better off. The problem here in the States is that that ship has already sailed. Guns are so readily available that anyone can get one, legally or not, and you are at a distinct disadvantage if someone confronts you with one and you are without. It is quite unfortunate that we live in a world where moral, financial, and social failings cause individuals and (as seen by the Iraq occupation) entire societies to commit criminal violence; but it is what it is.
The founding fathers of the US used firearms to overthrow King George’s (ironic isn’t it) oppressive rule and that is, simplistically but significantly, why the 2nd Amendment exists. Thomas Jefferson said (paraphrasing I think) “Every generation needs a new revolution.” The FF undoubtedly believed that the ability of the citizenry to fight back against tyrants would center on the weaponry needed to resist the tyranny combined with the will to remain free. Currently the US apparently has a surplus of the former and a paucity of the latter.
Thin-Skinned Paranoids:
“The Persecution Times” deleted my response to their post on the shootings.
Their original post said:
And I responded, in a comment that was rejected and deleted:
Steve/Tulse,
In the city, all private institutions of any size have security guards – because of the slimness of the police force.
The guards are only there for services – to protect the congregation, the majority of which lives in the city. The guards are only there during services. There are not there at any other time (i.e. only for property protection – and this is at a historic church which is over 150 years old).
” First, a response to the crimes of passion issue is in order.
Second, a response to the accidental shooting issue is in order.
Third, a response to the professional training vs. random person issue is in order.”
Well, all I can tell you is that I live in Vermont. In Vermont, one has never needed a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Anyone who can legally purchase or own a firearm can carry a concealed pistol.
Vermont has one of the lowest rates of gun-related crime and death, as far as I know, and always has. So much for the idea, then, that an armed citizenry will devolve into a shooting gallery?
I believe that the high rate of gun-related crime we suffer in the U.S.A. is attributable to drug dealing and the large proportion of Americans who are very, very poor.
Drive-by shootings during Al Capone’s day dropped precipitously when Prohibition was revoked. One wonders just how much crime, suffering , and violence should be attributed to the consequences of our miserable “War on Drugs”.
Chem Bob said:
“I’m inclined to agree that if no one had guns, we’d all be better off. The problem here in the States is that that ship has already sailed. Guns are so readily available that anyone can get one, legally or not, and you are at a distinct disadvantage if someone confronts you with one and you are without.”
Well I say all it needs is the will to do it. After the Dunblane shootings, the govt quickly passed a law making handguns illegal and the general shock made any brave enough to object shut up. So what happened? well if you had a handgun you took it down your local cop shop and handed it in. You got iirc GBP50 for it, didn’t matter if it was your grandad’s old army issue or an antique with gold inlaid ivory and mother of pearl, 50 quid was it. Besides something is only worth what someone will pay for it and the market for handguns had just closed.
Yes, we still have guns. Yesterday’s paper had an item on the trade in deactivated guns which then get reactivated. They look like following handguns and replicas onto the banned list. Oh and if you decide not hand in your gun or are found with an illegal one it is 5years minimum non parole, no iffs, no buts, no arguments, no matter how good your lawyer. The pistol target shooting fraternity either gave up or now keep their guns across the channel and shoot there, the rich ones i.o.w.
I say you can do it, no, it will not be pretty. Depends on how much you want it. Do you love your children, or not?
Ginger.
Your example proves nothing. Vermont has the population of less that 700,000.
The biggest city is 40,000. How many actually carry sidearms? How many could possibly come in contact with each other?
jcr will probably shoot me for this, but this is a case where the obvious solution is to embiggen da gubbamint. Put more taxpayer money on the police, police recruitment, and police training (the way you put food on your family), and this problem will go a long way towards its solution.
jcr will probably shoot me for this, but this is a case where the obvious solution is to embiggen da gubbamint. Put more taxpayer money on the police, police recruitment, and police training (the way you put food on your family), and this problem will go a long way towards its solution.
From an article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings
“Violent crimes of any sort are tragic enough, but when innocent people are killed in a religious facility or a place of worship, we must voice a collective sense of outrage and demonstrate a renewed commitment to keeping our communities safe,” said Gov. Bill Ritter.
Translation: It’s okay to be complacent about tragic violent crimes affecting ordinary innocent people, but when they’re religious innocent people, worshipping at their McGod’s, we must demonstrate outrage and try to legislate even more protections for the religious and their communities.
I heard one of the church’s ministers on CNN last evening stating that when the shootings near Denver occurred, the church in Colo. Springs was informed and arranged for security guards to be posted. I got the impression that security guards were not business-as-usual, but were brought in because the Colo. Springs church and the Denver training center for missionaries were of the same McGod franchise.
Still waiting to hear about the shooter. Wishing he (I think it was a “he”) hadn’t been killed, since it will be easy to misrepresent him as an atheist, even if he’s not, since, as we all know, all atheists are just christians who are angry with god. I suspect, but have no confirmation yet, that since the shooter went to two places of the same god franchise, he had some issue with that particular franchise.
Shelley:
Again, I don’t recall Jesus going around with an armed posse for protection, and I do recall him admonishing Peter to put away his sword when Jesus is seized in Gethsemane. I somehow doubt that there were armed guards at the Last Supper.
I guess Christians only turn the other cheek when it comes to other well-off Christians, and when relatively little is at stake. (Although I must admit being a bit confused — if those killed were churchgoers who were right with the Lord, then presumably they went straight to heaven, so their deaths should be a good thing, no?)
Tulse,
Just because people belong to a church doesn’t mean they live in another world – these are inner city congregants who live in an insecure environment everyday. They know what their faith will and will not do for them.
I’m sure the early Christians counted on the that time’s version of constabulary for local policing of local affairs.
You take an argument past the point of ridiculous. By the way, where do YOU live? and work? and go for entertainment?
David,
A lot of people here agree – unfortunately, we’re still in the minority, but still trying for change.
Unfortunately. JCR seems to be among the people who live in a fantasy world where the population of America can be exhaustively divided into two types of people: honest, responsible citizens who can be unequivocally trusted with a gun at all times and will never misuse it either accidentally or as a crime of passion, and amoral, ruthless premeditated criminals who cannot be trusted with guns but will have completely unfettered access to an unlimited supply of them through illegal channels in the event of a ban.
He believes that the world can be divided into absolute “good” vs. absolute “evil” in other words. Look how well that’s played out as a political philosophy.
I live nearby the Arvada one. I drive by it at least 2-3 times a week and it has never failed to annoy: The bridge arcing over the road, that silly 100 foot sign with water cascading down its entire length as if there weren’t a few drout years recently. And the kids who went there for K-8th grade were among the most ignorant once they joined us for high school. But I would not wish this one them. Even those who presume that they don’t die when they die don’t deserve it when it happens, especially like this.
As a citizen of Engerland, UKshire, I stare in bemused awe at the drooling US masses clamouring for guns. I feel I am in control of my faculties, and that I have a good temperament with no anger management issues. However, in my younger days I was involved in some drink-related pugilism, resulting in the odd black eye and a split lip, and emabarrased explanations the day after. I don’t recall an incident where I was ever shot to death.
The fact is, humans are animals, and a gun seems to turn an angry altercation into an unthinking mortal blow.
On the other hand . . . the Matrix was soooo cool!
Well said Scrofulum, I remember my childhood, here in Scotland and in New Zealand, we settled our differences, and had some fun, with our fists, and the occasional catapult. Later on those who liked that sort of thing went and played rugby. I remember one boy who was mad and bad even as a 10 yo. He eventually robbed a post office, just around the corner from where he lived actually (doh!) and his gun went off as he jumped the counter, the counter got it.
He eventually became NZ’s most wanted, went bush for a few weeks, ran the cops ragged. Then he committed suicide in his prison cell. Yes, some will be bad apples, but guns make bad apples in to murderers.
Shelley:
This has nothing to do with what their faith will do for them, but what their faith demands of them. Do you really think that Jesus would have killed someone who tried to rob him?
No, I’m just trying to understand how seriously Christians takes their faith.
Toronto — where there are reasonably strict gun laws, and where the homicide rate is about half that of Colorado Springs, much less the larger metropolitan areas of the US (for example, it is about one-fifth the rate of Houston, my old home town).
Shelly: Yes, I know the city well. I know that in parts of the urban poverty zone, every business has to choose between hiring private security services and having their pipes and electrical wires stolen for the black market value of the copper. I also know where New Life is in COS… as far as they can get from the urban poverty zone. The security detail was their to protect the parishioners, not the facility.
I don’t question the real-world need for security and crowd management at any large gathering of people. I *do* stand by the theological inconsistency of mortally saving the spritually “saved” by killing a stranger. And of New Life’s xtian spritual leaders having developed a plan for doing so. If beliefs are consistent with practice, then from a religious perspective, New Life has committed premeditated murder.
Granted, I don’t infer that New Life’s actions were wrong; just that their actions are evidence of the inherent hypocrisy of their belief system. Yet another opportunity to be glad that I’m an atheist.
The Jews are hoping he wasn’t Jewish. He was wearing a “skull cap” whatever that is.
Maybe it was Michael Korn?
Those who believe that guns can be used defensively when a mass shooting begins fails to understand the nature of target acquisition. That is why police wear uniforms. If a gunman comes out and starts shooting people, and three vigilante joes run towards the gunfire with pistols out, and all arrive at the same time, they have difficulty choosing a target to fire at. If they try communication, the gunman has an opportunity to respond to it. If the police then show up, they have four targets to worry about. There are other things to consider: what if one of the vigilante joes is arabic, or like myself, hispanic? People like to say that it wouldn’t make a difference, but the more time you spend in front of the TV, the more likely you are to demonize non-white peoples. Even after you have acquired your target, you must make sure that civilians clear out or else you could become just as deadly as the gunman, unless you have that perfect shot or an elevated view of your opponent.
Now in the case where someone is in your house, and you have a gun to defend yourself, it is likely that the person robbing your house, or whatever, will have a gun. Your only hope is to get out the gun before they are near you, and even then its a crapshoot as to who will win. In fact, knowing that there are good odds that someone will own a gun, it might be in the best interest of the person robbing the house to eliminate any chance that they will be shot, either through containment of the individuals within, or worse.
Guns fail as defensive weapons, period, from a tactical perspective. The best defense is not a good offense, but is instead, control of environment. Take Modern Kenpo Karate for a few months, and you’ll get a good deal of knowledge of how to avoid bad situations.
The congregation is not Quaker. Self defense is allowed and serving in defense of one’s country (in a justifiable war – i.e. NOT Iraq) is allowed.
Also, the guards in the case I am discussing are standing in for police services. Render unto Caesar – the police are supposed to provide for civilian security.
WWJD? He said he came not to bring peace, but a sword.
So it looks like a gun is not the proper weaponly for a church security guard. Swords for all!
Shelley:
So much for “turn the other cheek”. Again, if Jesus had been there, do you really think he would have shot the person? Was that the Christian thing to do? (And I’m still not clear why the deaths of good Christians, who will immediately go to heaven, is supposed to be a bad thing.)
Not in any official legal capacity. If the problem is lack of policing, then shouldn’t that be the emphasis of the church, and not just hiring rent-a-cops? Especially since many poorer people who can’t afford such hired protection are victims of violence as well — the church’s solution seems to ignore them entirely.
Ginger.
Your example proves nothing. Vermont has the population of less that 700,000.
The biggest city is 40,000. How many actually carry sidearms? How many could possibly come in contact with each other?
Nobody’s example or speculation around here “proves” anything. :D
On the other hand, at least Vermont offers a 100 year history of communities both rural and urban ( 130,000 in greater Burlington area, where I live) living with concealed weapons.
I find your demand for more carnage in a larger, more densely populated test area kinda ironic.
It is in small communities where the madman’s actions are most dramatic and newsworthy, hence these gory anecdotals are commonly useful and fair game to argue against gun possession. But small communities can’t be used as useful crucibles arguing for gun safety among normally peaceful folk?
At the same time, you demand that only large cities are statistically satisfactory of real gun violence. But large cities are where nearly all drug-related gun violence takes place. What does the skewed data from big cities tell us about common people and firearms?
Vermont may not “prove” anything, but surely it offers something useful to the discussion.
Azkyroth (and David),
The fantasy is that somehow if the cops just got enough funding/training/magic pixie dust, they’d be able to be everywhere at once and protect everyone. In the real world, shit happens sometimes, and it’s better to be prepared than unprepared.
Moses,
” A gun is for killing.”
So it is. Should the means to kill someone be reserved to criminals?
Your lurid, violent fantasy of my dying a painful death is a textbook example of why people like you are afraid of citizens having guns: you project your own desires to wreak havoc on everyone else, concluding that because you would go berserk if you had a gun, that other people would as well. The fact is, none of us would need guns, if it weren’t for people like you.
Try to work it out in therapy.
-jcr
Paul you missed out one requirement in your scenario, the good guys with guns have to be willing to take the life of another person.
Back home in NZ in Nov 1990 a disturbed young man went on the rampage with some firearms in the small, beautifully situated village of Aramoana, at the head of the Otago harbour. I was living and working in the city of Dunedin at the other end of the harbour at the time. One of his victims was the hard bitten, experienced police sergeant from nearby Port Chalmers, he died with his service revolver in his hand. He had obviously been crouching. One interpretation from those who knew him is that when it came down to it he could not pull the trigger.
Police marksmen eventually shot the guy from the top of the cliffs that overlook Aramoana (the name means pathway to the sea, in Maori). It is less beautiful than it used to be.
One of the things that has disturbed me in this discussion is how many of the people here talk so blithely about taking the life of someone else. Yes, they may be engaged in a violent act, but they are likely to be disturbed and they are still a fellow human being. That you seem not to consider this is perhaps part of the reason why the US has such a problem. Life seems rather cheap to you, from here.
JCR:
I understand that under certain conditions a firearm can be a valuable tool for self-defense.
Do you understand anything else?
Shelley has an obvious point and there is no reason to badger her. These days in the USA, seems like anyplace people gather can be a target for an armed loon. Shopping center malls, high schools, universities, skyscrapers, and now a church.
It is just common sense to protect yourselves and if armed guards are called for, get some.
As to the theology, not all Xians are pacifists. In fact, anything but. And even many pacifists will say self defense is warranted. They just object to slaughter en masse in armed conflicts of dubious rationality.
Between the OT and the NT, the theology can be stretched to fit self defense easily.
“So it is. Should the means to kill someone be reserved to criminals?”
Who, exactly, said that?
If you turn the question around, though, I think it actually works:
“Should everyone have the means to kill anyone else, criminal or otherwise?”
That, right there, is the key problem with “guns for all”. I mentioned how in two situations allowing unlimited access to guns would’ve ended up with many deaths (possibly hundreds in the case of a riot), whereas now they end up with some people injured and (in the case of riots) maybe a few dead.
Presumably my post got lost in the flood of others, so I’ll summarize it:
As soon as you give everyone a gun every fight becomes deadly.
Bar brawls? Suddenly instead of fists, you’ve got shots.
Schoolyard fights? Suddenly teachers and other students are falling dead.
School shootings? Suddenly every student thinks that every other one could be the killer, and so more people die.
Mugging? (Someone else made this point, but it’s a good one, so I’ll repeat it here) suddenly it becomes impossible to tell quickly who is the mugger and who is being mugged. In addition, rather than someone being mugged and losing a bit of money, suddenly it’s a deadly contest, one which someone will not survive.
In essence, as soon as you let everyone have guns, every conflict becomes a deadly one. Any situation where someone could lose control becomes dangerous. Every case of road rage has the potential to leave the other driver dead. Every robbery will end with someone dieing in a pool of blood.
It may be that you see this as an acceptable tradeoff. But I do not. Nor do I suppose I ever will.
raven:
While my comments may have been too pushy, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the same question that Christians ask all the time: “What would Jesus do?” I seriously doubt that the Jesus of the New Testament would pack heat and kill an assailant. That’s just my opinion, but I honestly would like to know if Christians in general think it is very Christ-like to have armed guards who shoot to kill at their facilities. (And I am still seriously confused as to why dying while right with the Lord is something to be avoided.)
Why stop at hand guns or automatic rifles? Why shouldn’t concerned “constitutionalists” be defending the right of every American mouth-breather highschool droput to carry hand grenades with them?
JCR:
“Fantasy?” Wow, now that’s projection. The idea of a nation of 300 million rootin’-tootin’-shootin’ Yosemite Sam wannabe’s being a safe and civilized place to live is fantasy.
In terms of the 2nd amendment, the fantasy is that Joe Sixpack is somehow going to win an arms race against the U.S. government (or at the very least bring it to some sort of a stalemate.)
“every American mouth-breather highschool droput ”
How long have you held your fellow citizens in such contempt?
-jcr
“In essence, as soon as you let everyone have guns, every conflict becomes a deadly one.”
So, why isn’t Florida a shooting gallery with deadly confrontations every day? For that matter, why isn’t Switzerland, where all men in a certain age range are required to keep an assault weapon and a supply of ammunition in their homes?
Sorry, but your speculation isn’t supported by real experience of states that passed “shall-issue” concealed carry laws.
-jcr
Do you understand anything else?
Quite a few things. For example, I understand that arguments aren’t won by merely affecting an air of smug superiority as you do. Did you pick up that tactic from the creationists?
-jcr
So, anyway, for the question posed in the title of the entry:
According to CNN, it was the same man at both, who had worked with Youth with a Mission a few years ago but had a falling-out with the organization.
The guard was a plain clothes guard. The security was enhanced after the Arvada shooting at the YWAM dormitory twelve hours previously, because the suspect was still at large. Law enforcement believe the two incidents are most likely linked.
The following is just coming across the wires:
A law-enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation, told The Associated Press that 24-year-old Matthew Murray of Arapahoe County was the lone gunman who killed four people and wounded five others on two church campuses before he was killed.
Murray, the son of a neurologist who is a prominent researcher on multiple sclerosis, did not appear to have a criminal history but “hated Christians,” the official said.
Disclosure: I just returned to the UK after three years in Arizona. Most Americans I met there had no idea how their country looks from an outsider’s point of view, and the gun thing, like the republicanism thing and the fundamentalism thing, were absolutely baffling to me.
Since JCR has asked that Florida question, let’s inject some actual, you know, facts into the debate.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm
tells me that in 2006 there were 1129 murders in Florida and a total of 128,795 violent crimes, which by my count comes to about three murders a day. I think in the USA we may safely take it that some of those involved guns, no?
So in fact Florida IS a shooting gallery with deadly confrontations every day.
Thank you, JCR, for making the point against yourself so clearly. Evidence is great :)
On that note,
Gun Deaths – International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.
From http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
I await frothing guns-are-great denial in 3…2….1….
Apparently, the shooter “hated christians.” That was the one of the first comments from an officer.
“The gunman was identified as Matthew Murray, 24, who was home-schooled by his family and raised in what a friend said was a deeply religious Christian household. Murray’s father is a neurologist and a prominent multiple-sclerosis researcher.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings;_ylt=AlbWUHj8J_5wIDH46GXVFdzZa7gF
You’re right; I shouldn’t pick on mouth-breathing American highschool dropouts, especially when there are enough alcoholics, drug addicts, convicted violent felons, drifters, and mentally unbalanced people who I also would feel disinclined to arm. Sorry — my bad.
From the article quoted above:
“Colorado Springs police said the “common denominator in both locations” was Youth With a Mission.
“It appears that the suspect had been kicked out of the program three years prior and during the past few weeks had sent different forms of hate mail to the program and/or its director,” Detective Bradley Pratt wrote.”
That’s ironic, considering that, aside from the creationists being honest enough to explicitly state their denial of facts that any idiot can check, your position isn’t that dissimilar to theirs. Seriously, try it out. “There are NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!” “There are NO PEOPLE WHO CAN’T BE TRUSTED WITH A GUN WHO WON’T ACQUIRE ONE ILLEGALLY!” Heh, theirs is catchier…
And frankly, given that you have flatly refused to engage the various counter-arguments that have been offered to you and instead harped obsessively on this adolescent macho fantasy version of appropriate self-defense as if it were the only situation in which guns would be used, as if there were no crimes of passion, no accidental shootings, no weapons that could be discharged simply by dropping them – as if we lived on a planet where no one ever pulled a gun, panicked, and shot someone harmless on the street, where no nervous citizen ever had a gun wrenched from his shaking hand and turned on him by one of the hardened criminals you seem to think are everywhere, where no one’s child ever found and played with a gun that their parents forgot to lock up and keep unloaded, where no one has ever been woken by a noise, fired into the darkness, and killed their daughter who was sneaking in after a late night with friends, ad nauseum…
Yes, I think both my question and tone are completely appropriate.
Azkyroth from this side of the pond you come across as restrained. Just recently here a boy accidentally shot his sister to death with a gun his mother had buried in the front garden. Seems she was hiding it for someone. They were sentenced recently, a rather tragic case.
I can’t help but giggle at the idea of “if a mugger has a gun, you need a gun to defend yourself!”.
If the mugger has a gun, chances are he’s pointing it at you, demanding your hand over your money. Slowly. As soon as he sees you reaching for your precious concealed firearm, he’ll shoot you. Yup, yup, having a gun really increases your options here, from one option (hand over the money) to two (hand over the money or die).
Also, I’ll join in the chorus of people from Europe who can’t help but stare slack-jawed at parts of this discussion.
As for the question of why Switzerland, where every male has a rifle at home, isn’t a shooting gallery: I daresay that it’s because a lot of the Swiss see that rifle as something only to be used at times of war, kept safely locked away at home, and not carried with them at all time. Because, dear gun nuts, it’s actually not allowed to take them outside of your home unless you have a permit. Said permits are strictly regulated, so strictly in fact that only members of the police and security firms can hope to get one. So, please stop using Switzerland as an example, mkay?
“I think both my question and tone are completely appropriate.”
That’s why I don’t consider you worth trying to convince. Your position is emotional and misanthropic.
-jcr
No comment on the Florida data, Mr. Randolph?
I think this:
http://www.thepaincomics.com/Sniper.JPG
pretty much sums up the situation.
Speaking of data…
It’s ok Darwin’s Minion the data posted earlier confirmed that the (relatively for Europe) high rate of firearm deaths in Switzerland is because of a disproportionate rate of suicide by firearm, not murder. Don’t know if you lot are more depressive than the rest of us or just have better, more effective means of topping yourselves than we do in the rest of Europe ;-)
Actually, I’m from Germany, so I can’t say anything about morbidly depressed Swiss and their preferred methods of offing themselves :P.
But I know a few Swiss, and their “gun culture” is very different from that in the US, at least for my sample group. I think it’s pretty telling how the guy who ran amok in 2001 in Switzerland didn’t use his army-issued rifle, but instead bought an illegal weapon to do the deed with. There’s a difference between allowing people to own guns and allowing them to run around carrying them at all times.
My fellow Americans:
The Second Amendment provides constitutional protection of firearms possession. Firearms are a vital tool in the violent overthrowing of tyrants. Once we’re clear of tyranny, we can safely lat down our weapons. Casual murder and horrific shooting sprees are part of the price we pay to keep our options open should the elected veer out of control. Colorado has no more or less of it than. It’s an uncomfortable and painful deal with the devil.
What makes you think the majority of private gun-owners will be fighting against the tyrants? I rather suspect a correlation between gun ownership and right-wing authoritarian tendencies.
@ # 129
You aimed this at me previously. I do not own guns and have no interest in harming any life. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I am an atheist and a vegan (due to reading too much Peter Singer). I feel that your disrespect for life comments are poorly misplaced in this case. Also, I might add, that once fight and flight kicks in, a very base response, then value of the life of others will automatically sink to a very low level. I have no qualms about that.
MJ.
You’re delusional if you think a bunch of Nascar Dad’s could overthrow our government if it became a military dictator ship.
The National Guard was formed to keep the states somewhat independant.
Yes the 2nd amendment did have constant revolution in mind if necessary.
But gun control does nothing to weaken it.
So Paul we should just let our animal based instincts override all our other values? that is the essence of what you are saying. And here was I thinking America was a civilised country, but according to you base instincts rule. But then according to all the polls the death penalty is still very popular over there, reinforcing my impression that life is rather cheap on the other side of the Atlantic.
Here we couldn’t bring it back if we wanted to, not without being booted out the EU and violating several UN treaties we have voluntarily signed up to anyway. Such instruments may seem easy to break or not important, but maybe that is another difference between us. We see them as instruments of higher civilisation. Yes, very many of us over here cringe at the manifest and gross hypocrisy when our leaders have at Iran, as if we weren’t also in breach of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Problem is we have no credible national parties who oppose this to vote for. A bit like you. However we do have here in Scotland a new govt which sees things differently. A bit like the Governator in California I suppose.
@stevie_C:
Might I suggest speaking to a National Guard member (or look it up at wikipedia) before opining on the ARNG and calling other thread contributers “delusional”?
As for MJ’s comment: indeed and some people like to label Bush as a tyrant, but I suspect they may be writing in hyperbole. The intent behind the Second Amendment is archaic these days as both technology and society has advanced, but it still stands to reason that law-abiding citizens should have access to the same tools that non law-abiding citizens can readily obtain.
AH. Now we have your angle.
Gun lover.
The Guard’s origins are the States Militias.
Randolph, it’s very simple.
Do you deny that accidental shootings occur? Yes or no.
Do you deny that accidental shootings are considerably more common than shootings of criminals? Yes or no.
Do you deny that there are people who will not be inclined to purchase a gun illegally, who do not have pre-existing criminal intentions, who nevertheless cannot be relied on to consistently exercise responsibility in the treatment of their firearms? Yes or no.