Security Guard "Saved Over 100 Lives". (OK, then... should the government ban guns?)

After I read this news story (below), I thought this would be more fodder for the gun control proponents to use in making their point in trying to get gun ownership banned, thinking shooting sprees like this can be eliminated by doing so.

However... what do you think would have happened if there was no other gun (this one in the right hands, though) inside this church at the time the murderer waltzed in and started shooting?

Also, had the murderer somehow known in advance that there was at least one other person who was trained, armed, and "locked and loaded" inside that church, do you think he would have still picked that place to victimize the innocent?

(If I was supposed to insert the link to this news item here, please forgive me. I'm new to blogging and not sure what to do or how to do it. I'm learning as I go. It is from CNSNews.com, though).

***********************************************************************
Security Guard "Saved Over 100 Lives" (CNSNews.com) -

Many people are expressing relief that a volunteer security guard used her own gun to stop a man on a shooting spree Sunday. "She probably saved over 100 lives", Brady Boyd, the pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, said on Monday. The female guard, a church member dressed in plain clothes, killed the gunman after he opened fire at the mega-church. Boyd said she "rushed toward the attacker and took him down in the hallway", as he entered the building. The shooting erupted around 1 p.m., at the end of a service, when 7,000 people were either inside the New Life Church or just leaving. "He was just walking and shooting", the Denver Post quoted one witness as saying. The gunman, still unidentified, shot at least eight people, killing two teenage sisters, the pastor said. The girls were 16 and 18 years old. Their father, also shot, is listed in father condition. The gunman is believed to be the same young man who shot and killed two people earlier the same day at a missionary training center in suburban Denver. In that case, the gunman opened fire, reportedly after he was refused permission to spend the night at the missionary center. The gunman was described as skinny, in his 20s, about 6 feet tall and dressed in black, police said. KUSA-TV reported that the gunman was wearing a "tactical helmet and body armor." The church's pastor said the New Life Church "prepared in advance" for a possible attack, after hearing about the shooting at the missionary training center.

***********************************************************************

No votes yet

You are right. They should allow people to carry guns everywhere. Churches, libraries, elementary schools, hospitals, the White House and the halls of Congress. Everyone should be issued a gun for their 18th birthday, regardless of gender, race, creed, or color. Guns for the blind, as well. Why should the handicapped be discriminated against!

... the "everyone should be issued" thing, since there is still a federal program for distributing all the M1 rifles that lay in storage by the bazillions. The last I heard, it was called the "DCX" program or something like that. Any citizen could sign up, take some shooting courses, pay the fee, and be proudly shipped one of these rifles from one of the arsenals across America. So, in effect, if you want to go through it, EVERYONE can get a "military" rifle issued to them.



You'd do a lot better if you just built your own .223cal/5.56mm or .308cal/7.62mm rifle from all the brands and parts available on the open market, however. You don't even have to take shooting courses (which is a good idea, don't get me wrong!). Your resultant rifle will be the best condition and outfitted as YOU want it. Remember, anyone in America can just go to a gun store, slap down the cash, and walk out with a rifle and ammo. Sure, they may toss some stupid check in there, but for most Americans this ability has been there for CENTURIES. So, in another effect, if you've got the cash, your issue rifle is waiting for you on some display rack in ADCO, Gander Mountain, even Cabela's.



{puts hand to ear}



Oh! Do you hear that? I do believe I hear another rifle, crying out for its owner. I sure hope its owner hears it, since there's nothing worse than a rifle laying on a shelf when it could be in the hands of a responsible citizen.

We'll never know, but I'm glad she was there, locked and loaded and had enough guts to do what needed to be done.

Dottie

Dottie

Also, had the murderer somehow known in advance that there was at least one other person who was trained, armed, and "locked and loaded" inside that church, do you think he would have still picked that place to victimize the innocent?

Sure, he would have just brought an extra shooter with him.

You make it kind of sound like she was just another person at church when she was actually a plain clothes security guard for the church.
Everytime there is a shooting like this or like the one at the mall people start talking about how much better it would have been if there were armed everyday citizens in the crowds, and I know on the surface that does sound like a good idea on the surface. It may actually be a great idea for the people who are close enough to to have seen it start, so that they know exactally who the rogue shooter is.
The problem I see is the guy two stores away who pulls his gun and comes running, and shoots YOU because all he knows is someone is shooting and everyone is afraid of terrorists and Columbine and you're the first person he sees with a gun and then theres the guy who shoots him for shooting you, ect...
I don't know what the answer is but I don't think automatically assuming that had the chruch goers or the patrons of the mall been armed that there would have been fewer people hurt or killed.

Kat

The Colorado chick is highly trained. She heard and saw the shooter herself. A trained gun carrier doesn't even pull his/her weapon unless there is an imminent threat. Trained gun carriers don't shoot willy -nilly.
Your comment is kind of a red herring.

I'm sorry Maildad but did you actually read my post? Because in the first sentence I acknowledge that she is a trained security person.
My post was actually less directed at the church shooting as it was more to an incident like the mall
I felt that the original poster came across sounding like this trained security guard was proof positive that having the average joe armed would stop mass killings.
I'm not an expert, maybe they would. Maybe just the idea that your chosen victims might shoot back would stop them (them being the homicidal shooter) from fireing the first shot.
I'm just not convinced.
Because I just also happen to think that it is entirely possible that more people could be injured by many people trying to do the right thing but not having enough information about the situation.
I was not trying to divert attention from anything, so my comment wasn't a red herring.
I just don't happen to think that everyone walking about with a gun permit is "highly" trained.
It was my idea/thought/opinion on the original post.

From Craig: hospitals, the White House and the halls of Congress. Everyone should be issued a gun for their 18th birthday,

What makes you think that all the members of the US Congress are disarmed? US Congress, the Senate, the US Supreme Court and the vast majority of official sycophants and their respective bodyguards go armed if they choose to do so. The exception to this is the bearing of arms in the presence of the US President, which is forbidden to everyone except the US Secret Service who are guarding the President. I think the same thing is true for the VP.

From Craig: Everyone should be issued a gun for their 18th birthday

I was given my first firearm when I was nine years old. I still have it, although I haven't shot it much lately.

From OhioKat:The problem I see is the guy two stores away who pulls his gun and comes running, and shoots YOU because all he knows is someone is shooting

If this scenario is a real danger, then please explain why it hasn't happened in Vermont or Alaska. You see, these States allow any law abiding resident to carry a loaded gun, concealed, without a license. Vermont has been this way for many, many years, as has Alaska. Why haven't these shootouts and gun battles taken place? We should be hearing about one or two per year, at the very least.

What I find interesting is that the church had a security staff of 12, all of whom are volunteers. Jeanne Assam used her own firearm to shoot the terrorist. So, I guess, the church was defended by civilians. These would be the same civilians that people like Craig want to disarm.

From a link to the story on CNN:

Assam was one of about a dozen volunteer security guards at the church, half of whom are armed, Boyd said. The guards are licensed, trained and screened, and are church members, not "mercenaries," he said
half of whom are armed, and half of whom are in plain clothes. Why did the Pastor feel the need for security?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/?imw=Y&iref=mpst...

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

You guys are so silly. With your right to bear arms stuff. If we would just simply pass a LAW that says they can't have them - none of the criminals will own guns anymore.

I mean after all - criminals are so law abiding and everything.

If you'd just stop fighting that law then the criminals wouldn't have any guns - the citizens wouldn't have any guns - ONLY the government would have guns. Won't you constitutional type nuts just step aside?!

As my second grade teacher said...'think it through all the way to the end'. Course that was just one of those puzzle mazes....

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

You sound very knowledgeable about this subject. Therefore, would you interpret the Second Amendment as granting individuals the right to bear arms, or granting state-militias the right to bear arms (a collective interpretation)?

I'm sorry, where did you get that idea? The Second Amendment is perfectly clear. There's no "interpretation" there at all all. In order to even FORM militias which may be regulated (i.e. outfitted, trained and summoned) by the government for defense, the individual citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms FIRST, to wit:



"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"



Just because some Liberal pieces of shit on the bench and legislature try to twist the meaning to restrict guns for the National Guard and the police, doesn't mean shit itself to what the Second Amendment really means.



The Founding Fathers were MORE THAN CLEAR about who could keep and bear arms, and why. The "who" is EVERYONE. The "why" is FOR SELF-, STATE- AND NATIONAL-DEFENSE.



It is a singular measure of America's perversity, that the Second Amendment is so clear about the franchise of the right to keep and bear arms, and yet be so restrictive about guns at all levels of government. I've watched this bullshit get worse and worse during the 1990s, when the Liberal pieces of shit were trying to ban guns outright. It's stupid and it's wrong and it's time to put the so-called "interpretation" of the Second Amendment to bed once and for all. EVERYONE has the right to keep and bear arms. It's the LAW OF THE LAND since it's AFFIRMED in the US Constitution. On top of that, Ohio's state constitution not only contains it's OWN form of the S.A., but it goes further and states that the right to keep and bear arms is for self defense. There is no interpretation here. There is only the huge problem of Liberal turds trying to disarm us all in the face of violent criminals, the police, the military and finally all the security services of the government and private industry.

I'm glad it's clear to you, since constitutional lawyers have debated the meaning longer than you and I have been around. I'm not quite sure where you get the "liberal" references, but consider this article:

In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud-- I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. " In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state. "

Burger was considered conservative, and was a strict constitutionist.

... needs to expand.

I get my "liberal" references since there's no Libbie that I've ever met who wasn't at least squeamish about the right to keep and bear arms, and there were TOO MANY of them who rejected the Second Amendment outright (which as you may note, is definably unconstitutional -- you can't just cherry-pick the US Constitution for things you like). Being Liberal today, from the popular media, means to reject the Second Amendment. Are you in denial or something?

And who cares what some old fraud said in 1991? HE'S WRONG. The clarity of the Second Amendment makes him just another old boob, who predictably sagged out of sensible territory.

READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT. On top of that, notice that you've been able to keep and bear arms all your life ... just like your father did, and his father, etc. while they were American citizens. We've had the CLEAR right to keep and bear arms for CENTURIES ... so what the FUCK can you say about some old fart like Burger blathering before a microphone in 1991? Shit, by 1991, the right to keep and bear arms had been exercised BILLIONS of times for about 200 years. It's a bit late for the Libbies (which Berger can only be considered, today, for his anti-gun sentiments) to try to reinterpret history itself.

The right to keep and bear arms cannot be "reinterpreted" after 200 years of clear practice. The urge to do so, is a LIBERAL urge. That's where the Liberals most clearly fail us, in their reaching for a utopia despite all evidence and legality to the contrary. We already LIVED in a utopia, called the Republic of the United States. A man that felt threatened, could arm himself freely in response. Liberty was the point of legality. Where did that Republic disappear to? That's right, both the Liberals and Conservatives CASHED IT OUT as being a threat to their corporate profits. I shit on them BOTH for that.

And keep in mind that if the upswell of gun-grabbing ever rises above a certain point, we're quite simply going to shoot you in the collective sense. Word to the wise. You want to see Civil War just because you can't tolerate a few criminals making your cities unsafe? Watch it happen!

You're INSANE if you think "liberals" are trying to take your guns away. I don't know any liberals who don't fully support the 2nd Amendment. The whole idea of liberalism is to protect liberty, despite the looney right-wingers who try to redefine it. I've said it many times, the crooked imperialist president we have (who would rather piss on the Constitution than adhere to it) has made clear the need for a 2nd Amendment---firstly by making more enemies for us to defend ourselves against---and secondly, by making real the possibility of having to defend ourselves against a gov't hell-bent on taking away our civil liberties. However, I don't like the idea of getting too chummy with the like of the NRA either. They're just another all-too powerful special interest lobby, like unions and the kooky religious right.

That being said, I'm not above trying to discuss the intent of the (yes) clumsily worded SA in regards to state militias, federalism, well-regulated, etc....

Point. By. Point.

1. All the gun BANS enacted by cities (DC, SanFran, Chicago) were enacted by Liberals. Toledo itself is run by Liberal elements who have taken EVERY possible step to stop the right to keep and bear arms.

2. In the book "In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action", Caroline Kennedy and Ellen Alderman (i.e. two flaming Liberals) laud the use of "home rule" to ban guns, and continue repeating the falsehood that the "right to keep and bear arms is not absolute". This is a sentiment much repeated across America by Liberals.

3. During the 1990s, more and more restrictions were heaped upon common weapon classes by a Liberal majority in the US Congress, so that a black market arose for supplying high-capacity ammo clips. Once the depraved Liberal administration of Clinton passed, these restrictions expired in the Congress (which being Conservative by then, chose not to re-enact them). The end result is that a clip you can buy for $10 today cost at least $40 then, if you could even find one due to all the bans. (Note that I learned my lesson from the Liberal Nineties, and loaded up with clips once the bans passed. NEVER AGAIN.)

4. The Liberal media continues to refuse to report acts of self defense on the part of citizens. These acts are well enough documented in NRA periodicals. As for myself, my two acts of (admittedly unarmed) seizure of criminals-in-the-act have NOT been reported by the Blockade. The Blockade will NOT report acts of self defense -- it doesn't fit the Liberal mindset that people have the right and OBLIGATION of not only self defense but the stopping of crime.

Look, Chris, I'm very glad to finally meet a Liberal (and a flamin' one at that) who simply acknowledges the truth of the Second Amendment. But you're in the minority in your class of Liberal, and personally every Liberal I know has at least some doubts about the Second Amendment (as well as an ardent refusal to arm themselves). Most Liberals HATE the right to keep and bear arms, as well as anything that can be considered a danger to others (drinking, smoking, etc.).

These hatreds well explain by Liberals are hated on the national scene itself. There's nothing more perverse that a "Liberal" who doesn't really believe in LIBERTY. You're free to arm yourself, keep your money, avoid the poor, and build a castle. THAT is what Americans should be free to do. But the Liberals only want people to be disarmed, to be in deep debt, and to live in the cities ... where by no small coincidence they can be best controlled.

The Conservatives are no better, since there are other parts of the US Constitution they have no intention of honoring, either. Search and seizure, due process, etc. ... these are the sins of Conservatives. So I'm not ignoring what the Cons are doing (or failing to do). But the right to keep and bear arms is certainly much better kept under a Conservative administration than a Liberal one. The Clinton and Czarty administrations well demonstrate THAT.

(In case you're wondering, I'm voting for Ron Paul in 2008 even if I have to write him in ... which is likely, considering the Republicans will do to him what the Democrats did to Nader in 2004.)

Chris, trotting out Warren Burger to support the anti position doesn't solve anything. I can find just as many illustrious supporters of gun rights as you can find those opposing them.


**
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)


**
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

**
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

My intent was not to start a quoting war (that never proves anything), but to highlight the article which discusses the debate of the meaning. I am on the record of favoring individual ownership. However, there are many who see the SA as more of a Federalist stance (ie, protecting state militias from the national gov't), and the "people" referring to state militias rather than individuals. Apparently Warren Burger saw it this way. Nearly everyone admits that the wording was clumsily designed. Why is this? If this was so cut and dried, why wouldn't it just say "the right of all individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? I think you already broke down your stance on this, on another thread. Just looking for other opinions--

The wording is not "clumsily designed". They WROTE in long, rambling sentences as a matter of course. Read the letters these guys wrote back and forth. Our postings here look like the work of children compared to their long sentences.

And there's just no clumsy design at all in the summation fragment "... shall not be infringed".

Look, people only PRETEND this is a debatable topic since they WANT to remove the right from Americans. That depraved desire is the heart of the problem.

The larger point is, if you feel threatened by an armed populace ... well, dammit, ARM YOURSELF!

Why do Liberals accept that speech should be fought with more speech, but not threat with more threat?

From Chris: ...would you interpret the Second Amendment as granting individuals the right to bear arms, or granting state-militias the right to bear arms (a collective interpretation)?

First of all, you are committing a logical fallacy generally referred to as the false dilemma fallacy. You offer two choices and purport that they are mutually exclusive, when such is not the case. Shame on you; you know better.

Consider the second amendment, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me, in my profound ignorance, this is what the second amendment says, rephrased in my own words: If our happy home is going to remain free of invaders who want to conquer us, we need a militia, which is a group of armed men and women who have agreed to work together as a cohesive unit, and who will report to a military commander who is also part of the militia. And, because we know that not all people are good, the individual adult can own and carry around firearms of his own choice in a manner that pleases him, anytime he likes, anywhere he likes. The 'bear arms' part means that the individual has to be able to move it around by himself without help from anyone else. Hitching it to your pickup truck is Ok.

This means we have the right to bear arms. Not 'if this', not 'but that' and not 'except something else'. The right to bear arms. Period.

So, should I want one, and am able to afford it, I can own a minigun complete with a dump truck of ammo and keep the thing on my front lawn. I can carry a machine pistol to school, church, the post office, work, where ever. I can carry concealed or openly. The only place that my right might be superseded is in someone else's home, because a man's home is his castle.

Somewhere, just under my balcony, I can hear the howls of the rabid moonbats. The Second Amendment isn't clear! Philosophers and other legal beagles have been debating it for years! You're a liar and you cheat at cards!

The second amendment has been debated for a long time. The reason for the debate is that one portion of the populace does not like the other portion of the populace...

...wait for it...

being equal. Most gun control laws, in fact the vast majority of gun control laws, were originally enacted to prevent black people from owning firearms. KKK members were in the government and didn't want to run into a hail storm of hot lead when they assembled to hold their monthly lynching. Just across the street you can see the Nazi party disarming the Jews in the name of law and order. Equality is a bad thing if you're trying to oppress someone. These days it is the US government who wants to disarm the entire populace. Why do you suppose that is? These days, I don't want to think about that too much. I've heard it said, though, that a person can tell what their elected representative thinks about him by the representatives view on gun control. If the government trusts you with firearms, they think you're pretty much Ok and will help out if the pellets hit the windmill.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

... you DO cheat at cards, and you've been known to tell a tall tale or three after downing a few bottles of Rye. Just sayin'. :^)

Every citizen should always be prepared to protect themselves from their own government.

It isn't about liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans. It's about control. A populace that is disarmed is easy to control.

Consider the armed demonstrations in Ohio over the CCW law. Several hundred armed men and women showed up in Columbus on a weekday in support of the right to bear arms. You will never find a friendlier, more helpful group of police as those that showed up to control those armed demonstrators.

This whole thing isn't about anything but the government trying its best to control the citizens.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Learned commentary on the meaning of the 2nd Amend. centering on the use of the commas. Read this and tear your hair out.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005229.html#more

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.