Gunman, victim killed in Colo. church attack

[The Decider]

Quote by: mark3748 There's a difference between peacefully carrying a firearm for self-defense and walking through a church, brandishing and shooting people, doesn't take much to tell the difference

Yep, and the armed guard did her job, as planned. If the threat is severe, hire more guards. Simple.

[Osborn F Enready]

Decider said: Yep, and the armed guard did her job, as planned. If the threat is severe, hire more guards. Simple.

Yea, maybe we can have man to man coverage, a guard for every man woman and child, wouldn't that be groovy?

Unrealistic.

[mark3748]

Quote by: The Decider I'm not opposed to trained armed guards with uniforms and a professional code of conduct. Not at all. I oppose arming every citizen in the church. Had guns been a commonplace item in that church, the security guard would be less likely to find anything odd about the gunman. He would have entered the sanctuary and opened fire from behind, striking his armed but defenseless victims in the back before someone killed him. More guns doesn't mean more safety.

does the fact that people don't carry AR-15s arround for self defense not mean anything to you?

The attack started when a gunman in a black trench coat and a high-powered rifle entered the church's main foyer about 1 p.m. and began shooting, according to a source who was locked down at the church Sunday afternoon, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the police department had asked that it release all information.

[mark3748]

Quote by: The Decider Yep, and the armed guard did her job, as planned. If the threat is severe, hire more guards. Simple.

They didn't hire anyone, she's a volunteer

[mark3748]

After reading up a bit on the story, I have found that the media is somewhat misrepresenting the "security guard"

The person who shot back, and stopped the killer was a CCW permit holder, who was acting as an unpaid "volunteer guard" at her church. Of course, the news media is misrepresenting her as some kind of uniformed police officer or professional security guard, when she was merely a ccw holder wearing jeans.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien Pray tell Zee, please enlighten us on how to absolutely prevent someone from obtaining a gun. La la lala la.........la la la la la....

What a moronic statement. There is no absolute fix for any of society's problems, as I am sure you are aware. Are you going to try and tell me that arming every citizen is absolutely going to prevent the type of massacres that have become prevalent in American society? You want absolutes from me? Then provide some of your own.

[The Decider]

Quote by: mark3748 does the fact that people don't carry AR-15s arround for self defense not mean anything to you?

If church and its members permited weapons, how do you know that assault rifles would not be part of the arsenal? Are you going to dictate what is and what isn't a suitable weapon for self-defense? In fact, you have no way of knowing what kind of weapons the parishioners would choose to own.

True, the gunman entered the building shooting, but he probably knew about the guard. If he thought his gun would cause no major worry he might choose to walk in, say hello, and enter the sanctuary untouched. Who knows? In any case, the church policy of stationing a trained guard worked. They avoided guns in the sanctuary.

Quote by: mark3748 They didn't hire anyone, she's a volunteer

I never said she was hired. I said that if the church felt that it needed more security than just one trained guard it could hire more security guards, unless of course they have enough volunteers. The employment status is irrelevant.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't support MANDATORY firearms training, but I think if public schools ARE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, it should be offered as an elective at the High School level to 16year olds and older.

Most high schools don't even offer driver's ed anymore. If you want to drive before you turn 18, you need to go pay for a private program, at least locally. I doubt there's room in the school budget for such a program but I certainly thing that before you can purchase a firearm, you should be required to take a class in proper handling and safety, just like before you're allowed to take a test for motorcycle licensing, you have to take a class.

Has force worked on drugs?

No, but that's because we both agree there's no such thing as a war on drugs, we have a media campaign on drugs, we talk about it a lot, we really don't do a damn thing about it. Same with illegal firearms. Sure, once in a while they'll offer a reward for turning in illegal guns but otherwise, they don't even make much of an effort.

What is sad about our society is the lack of trust the people have in the government, and the lack of trust the government has in the people, WHILE STILL CLAIMING to be "of the people, by the people, for the people".

No, what's sad are the people who think they can take their handgun and hold off the "evil government hordes at their door". They can't. I don't care how many guns you have, if the government decides they're taking you down, you're dead. Period. Ask the idiots at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Their arsenal didn't protect them at all and the whole "you can pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers" nonsense is childish.

Maybe if more people actually tried to CHANGE the government instead of hunkering down in foxholes pretending they can fight the government, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.

[brien]

This case hardly justifies arming and training all or most civilians. Not in the least

Once again, sweeping statements and conclusions like the one above shows how the anti gunners must resort to using extremes in an attempt to marginalize the effectiveness and the deterrence of people who keep and carry firearms.

I never wrote that this case justifies "arming and training all or most civillians". What I write is that Americans who qualify have the right to keep and carry firearms. If carrying means in a church, a school, or a restaurant, so be it. Other people around those who are armed usually do not know who is armed, and who isn't armed, because permits to carry require the firearms be concealed. This alone can be a deterrent to someone who may be considering a massacre. On the other hand, if this same person who is considering a massacre knows most, if not all of the people he/she targets, don't have firearms, he/she will be more emboldened to carry out his/her plan of attack. All citizens, not even most citizens, do not need to be armed in order for the deterrence to be effective. All that needs to be generally understood is that some citizens may be armed and ready to take out any perp who is ready to commit a crime with a firearm.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

The valid points still stand, and thank Mark for pointing out the supposed "security guard" was INDEED a private citizen with a CCW permit.

All the bickering and crying by the anti-gunners can't change the fact that one person who was trained and took their safety as their own responsibility, most likely just saved not only her own life, but the lives of many others, for acting in reasonable, competent self-defense.

[brien]

Quote by: The Decider I'm not opposed to trained armed guards with uniforms and a professional code of conduct. Not at all. I oppose arming every citizen in the church. Had guns been a commonplace item in that church, the security guard would be less likely to find anything odd about the gunman. He would have entered the sanctuary and opened fire from behind, striking his armed but defenseless victims in the back before someone killed him. More guns doesn't mean more safety.

Here we go again with those on the other side of the argument once agin using extremes to marginalize and misrepresent those who advocate the constitutional right to keep and bear firearms. Like this statement:

I oppose arming every citizen in the church.

This statement indicates that those of us on the other side of the argument advocate arming everyone in church. Nothing can be further from the truth. However, if everyone in that church was legally armed by their own free will, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But in reality this is not usually the case, unless you attend a church service for the members of the NRA, and even probably then, not ALL people would be armed. So to make the statement above is disingenuous and serves no intellectual aspect in this debate.

Had guns been a commonplace item in that church, the security guard would be less likely to find anything odd about the gunman.

Now let's examine this statement. It is ludicrous because most people can't determine who carries concealed firearms and who doesn't carry concealed firearms. Unless of course he is Superman who lives in the same fantasy world as anyone who would believe he./she could tell if even one person was carrying a concealed firearm.

He would have entered the sanctuary and opened fire from behind, striking his armed but defenseless victims in the back before someone killed him.

Anyone could do the same thing with a knife, a hatchet, or even a pumped up air pellet gun aimed at the closest skull. So what's the point?

More guns doesn't mean more safety

The mere perception of more firearms means a greater understanding of possible deterrence and it is the deterrence that will act as the balance for those who may consider attempting violence with a firearm during the commission of a crime.

Who would be safer? Those attending an annual meeting of the NRA, or even the local sportman's club, or those attending an annual meeting of the citizens who oppose the 2nd Amendment? Who would be more likely to be a target for robbery by someone considering robbery? The answer is obvious that the NRA members would not be the choice over the other group because of the deterrence factor. So, we see that even the perception of a group being armed leads to deterrence as opposed to those who would have a perception of not being armed.

[brien]

Quote by: Zeebadee What a moronic statement. There is no absolute fix for any of society's problems, as I am sure you are aware. Are you going to try and tell me that arming every citizen is absolutely going to prevent the type of massacres that have become prevalent in American society? You want absolutes from me? Then provide some of your own.

Zee; It was you who made the moronic statement that indicated society could prevent people from obtaining guns. I will find it and paste it here.

You wrote:

Of course, if the perp hadn't been able to obtain a gun, the whole incident would never have occurred.

Then you write:

There is no absolute fix for any of society's problems

The first statement above indicates that somehow society can prevent this guy from obatining a gun. The second statement absolutely refutes the first.

Moronic, indeed. Look in the mirror. LOL

[brien]

Same with illegal firearms. Sure, once in a while they'll offer a reward for turning in illegal guns but otherwise, they don't even make much of an effort.

This statement above is once again focusing on the wrong aspects of the debate.

Society needs to target PEOPLE who commit crimes with a firearm. Firearms are inanimate objects and without a human hand to use them, they are ineffective. Targeting the firearm is useless in a society where there are over 200 MILLION of them, and who knows how many illegal ones.

Society neeeds to make the punishment severe, swift, and certain when a PERSON uses a firearm during the commission of a crime.

The government needs to get much tougher on first time offenses and senetnce them to a minimum of 10 years, no parole. A second time offender needs to be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years no parole, and a third time offender to life.

Only then will crimes involving firearms be reduced because the perp will know when he is caught, he goes away for a long, long time.

[brien]

Ask the idiots at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Their arsenal didn't protect them at all and the whole "you can pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers" nonsense is childish.

These "idiots" were attacked by the government hell bent upon using force to kill their "suspects" on the pretense they were armed. I don't see how a woman with a baby in her arms was threatening any FBI agent. The people at Ruby Ridge could have been waited out until they ran out of food or needed medical attention. When the FBI was fired upon, they could have pulled back and waited them out. And David Koresh could have been arrested peacefully any number of times on his trips into Waco. In each instance cited, the "suspects" did NOT have to be attacked by the government because they may have been armed.

I find it very strange that some of the same people who advocate talking to "terrorists" abroad often advocate the opposite here in the US. My my, how ironic and hypocritical.

Maybe if more people actually tried to CHANGE the government instead of hunkering down in foxholes pretending they can fight the government, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in.

What situation, pray tell, might this be?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: brien Excellent suggestion. Let's also keep in mind that there are an estimated 200 MILLION legal firearms in the US. We don't know how many illegal firerms there are here. I can't wait.

Only 200 million? That isn't even enough to arm every American citizen. The gun manufacturers are falling behind!

[mark3748]

Quote by: Cephus just like before you're allowed to take a test for motorcycle licensing, you have to take a class.

Wrong. You either take the test and get your license, or you take a class which exempts you from the test. AFAIK, a class isn't required in any of the 50 states.

If church and its members permited weapons, how do you know that assault rifles would not be part of the arsenal? Are you going to dictate what is and what isn't a suitable weapon for self-defense? In fact, you have no way of knowing what kind of weapons the parishioners would choose to own.

It doesn't matter what a person would choose to own, it matters what a person would choose to carry on a daily basis. Something concealable and easy to handle is a far better choice and one that the millions of gun owners make every day.

Besides that, the owner of the private property could just as easily limit their parishoners to handguns, it's not practical to have a large weapon when you're trying to squeeze thousands of people into a single service

Other people around those who are armed usually do not know who is armed, and who isn't armed, because permits to carry require the firearms be concealed.

Yes, I absolutly agree, except the part about being required to carry concealed. Most states that offer CCW permits don't require concealment, they just allow you to carry concealed. The fact is, if you're getting a permit to carry concealed, there's really no reason not to do so. Some states, like Indiana, make no distinction between a permit to carry openly (which I oppose, there should be no permits required to carry openly) and concealed carry (which I also don't completely agree with, but my state constitution clearly states that my right to keep and bear arms doesn't include concealed carry).

[Cephus]

Quote by: brien Society needs to target PEOPLE who commit crimes with a firearm. Firearms are inanimate objects and without a human hand to use them, they are ineffective. Targeting the firearm is useless in a society where there are over 200 MILLION of them, and who knows how many illegal ones.

I agree, but it's hard to be proactive in such a situation, you have to wait until the crime has been committed to react, you can't stop the crime from happening in the first place. Therefore you need a two-pronged attack, one to stop the illegal guns (and presumably the criminals) to begin with and the other to severely punish those who get past the first option.

What a lot of gun-advocates preach is "we can't stop the criminals and illegal guns entirely so let's just arm everyone!" That simply does not follow.

[Cephus]

Quote by: brien These "idiots" were attacked by the government hell bent upon using force to kill their "suspects" on the pretense they were armed.

Sorry, in the Waco incident, the Davidians shot first. The reality is, Koresh broke the law and when the proper authorities came to arrest him, instead of allowing himself to be taken into custody, he condemned a lot of innocents to death.

Just because they could have arrested Koresh at a different time, and I agree with you entirely, doesn't change the fact of the situation as it happened.

[Cephus]

Quote by: mark3748 Wrong. You either take the test and get your license, or you take a class which exempts you from the test. AFAIK, a class isn't required in any of the 50 states.

If you are under 21, you must complete a motorcycle rider training course given by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and provide a certificate of Completion of Motorcycle Training (DL 389) to DMV to be issued your license.

Driver License and Identification (ID) Card Information

[brien]

The reality is, Koresh broke the law

The reality is Koresh could have been arrested any number of times upon his frequent trips into Waco. Janet Reno's thugs didn't need to go out and provoke a heated controversy at the Davidian Complex. That's the reality of the situation.

Just because they could have arrested Koresh at a different time, and I agree with you entirely, doesn't change the fact of the situation as it happened.

Yes it does. The government had several opportunities to solve the problem peacefully yet they chose to go out to the complex where they knew they would have a confrontation. It was a shameful exibition of government power gone awry. The deaths of those children are certainly upon the hands of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton, and if there is a higher power, I damn well hope they are held accountable for those needless deaths.