Gunman, victim killed in Colo. church attack

[Osborn F Enready]

2 dead in Colo. church shooting - Crime & courts - MSNBC.com

MSNBC staff and news service reports updated 10:22 p.m. ET, Sun., Dec. 9, 2007 COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A gunman killed one person and wounded four others before being shot dead by a security guard at a busy Colorado Springs megachurch on Sunday, authorities said. The shooter, who was not identified, was shot dead in the parking lot by a church security guard, Colorado Springs police chief Richard Myers said at a news conference. 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. The church's 11 a.m. service had recently ended, and hundreds of people were milling about when the gunman opened fire. Nearby were parents picking up their children from the nursery. Police arrived to find that the gunman had been killed by a member of the church's armed security staff, Myers said. "There was a courageous staff member who probably saved many lives here today," Myers said. Gov. Bill Ritter ordered state authorities to help investigate. The FBI and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were assisting, and officers combed the church campus looking for suspicious devices.

Hey look, an armed, petite, female with the proper training, used her personally owned small-caliber firearm to stop an attempted mass slaying of unarmed church goers, against a more heavily armed attacker.




No suprises here, to some of us.



OMG, imagine an armed innocent populace? Maybe we could actually affect violent crime victims!!

[Zeebadee]

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

[Jack]

She was a security guard. Is this an argument for the presence of armed guards everywhere as well? Nothing says "police state" better than ubiquitous armed security.

[brien]

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

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....

Once again Os, we see how certain further deaths were prevented by an armed citizen but the "anti gunners" are loathe to admit it.

[brien]

Quote by: Isherwood She was a security guard. Is this an argument for the presence of armed guards everywhere as well? Nothing says "police state" better than ubiquitous armed security.

I don't see why the fact she was a security guard argues for "armed guards everywhere" and a "police state". Citizens can be trained and armed and not work as security guards as well. In this case, perhaps it was coincidential but this incident could have just as easily been mitigated by a citizen than it was by the security guard. Who knows, perhaps Mr Horn from Pasadena Texas could have been there.

I

[Muser]

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

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to say this.

Gun ban advocates: here's your opportunity to demonstrate your proposal for a successful gun ban in the US. Tell us how it can be successfully accomplished. Start with the assumption[1] that the US gov't has just outlawed guns for everyone except police and security officials - and go from there.

Be prepared to show why a gun ban would succeed amidst the same situational conditions that have derailed efforts to "ban" drugs and illegal aliens. Be prepared to prove situations like Omaha would never, ever happen again.

[1] Barking mad as it is

[Osborn F Enready]

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

Of course, if humans didn't have a tendency towards anything other than love, this wouldn't be an issue..... but both scenarios have about an equal chance of success.... none.

Ish said: She was a security guard. Is this an argument for the presence of armed guards everywhere as well? Nothing says "police state" better than ubiquitous armed security.

Actually my argument is against the police state, by pointing out that if people simply took their responsibility of personal safety more seriously, we wouldn't have to rely "on others" to protect us.

Aquire training, aquire a means to defense, and be prepared to use them, and we can end the justification for much of the "police state" argument.(which is flawed from top to bottom anyway)

It could have just as easily been a Soccer mom who had gone through a proper training course, that stayed in practice with her personal small caliber firearm, and carried it for defense.

That is my point.

[Osborn F Enready]

brien said: Once again Os, we see how certain further deaths were prevented by an armed citizen but the "anti gunners" are loathe to admit it.

Agreed.

[brien]

Quote by: Muser I wondered how long it'd take for someone to say this. Gun ban advocates: here's your opportunity to demonstrate your proposal for a successful gun ban in the US. Tell us how it can be successfully accomplished. Start with the assumption[1] that the US gov't has just outlawed guns for everyone except police and security officials - and go from there. Be prepared to show why a gun ban would succeed amidst the same situational conditions that have derailed efforts to "ban" drugs and illegal aliens. Be prepared to prove situations like Omaha would never, ever happen again. [1] Barking mad as it is

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.

[brien]

Actually my argument is against the police state, by pointing out that if people simply took their responsibility of personal safety more seriously, we wouldn't have to rely "on others" to protect us. Aquire training, aquire a means to defense, and be prepared to use them, and we can end the justification for much of the "police state" argument.(which is flawed from top to bottom anyway) It could have just as easily been a Soccer mom who had gone through a proper training course, that stayed in practice with her personal small caliber firearm, and carried it for defense. That is my point.

And an excellent one at that Os.

[Jack]

Aquire training...

If only more people would. I support mandatory education for all gun buyers, though who can say if it would actually make them more skilled shooters than the people who attend driver's ed classes are skilled drivers. My only objection to private gun ownership is the number of untrained, unskilled people who consider their weapon a social equalizer, something to whip out and employ anytime they feel threatened by anything at all. People like that are as much a danger to the rest of us as any armed criminal.

I'd also like to see some effort put into solving violence besides making America an armed camp. That's a sad commentary on our society.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isherwood said: If only more people would.

I agree.

Isherwood said: I support mandatory education for all gun buyers, though who can say if it would actually make them more skilled shooters than the people who attend driver's ed classes are skilled drivers.

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.

I believe the problem with "drivers ed" in relation to "skilled drivers" has less to do with skilled firearms users and firearms training.

The problem with drivers ed is the lack of oversight..... thanks to who?

Isherwood said: My only objection to private gun ownership is the number of untrained, unskilled people who consider their weapon a social equalizer, something to whip out and employ anytime they feel threatened by anything at all.

I agree, but this can't be addressed through force, it must be addressed through public and private education.

Has force worked on drugs?

No.

Isherwood said: People like that are as much a danger to the rest of us as any armed criminal.

I would say they pose a threat, but not nearly the threat of armed criminals, with intent, motivation, skill and ability.

Accidents happen, surely, but I don't see them as threat level of equal proportion.

Isherwood said: I'd also like to see some effort put into solving violence besides making America an armed camp. That's a sad commentary on our society.

I disagree.

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".

[brien]

People like that are as much a danger to the rest of us as any armed criminal. I'd also like to see some effort put into solving violence besides making America an armed camp. That's a sad commentary on our society.

And people who violate the law using firearms need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is the key to reducing gun related violence and crimes. When the consequences of violating the laws are severe, and pusnishment is swift and certain, the violence will surely subside.

I think the term "armed camp" is propagating an exaggerated vision of the US. It doesn't serve the debate to inflame visions such as this.

[mark3748]

You don't get a lot of stories like this around here, most people just aren't crazy enough to try. We have a fairly lax stance on guns, open carry is completely legal, no matter what, and we have a shall-issue concealed carry law. You take your class, you send your money, you get your CCW permit.

That being said, New Life hires private security, private citizens that carry their personal firearms. She did her job and that was great, but the real point is, any armed citizen could have done the same.

Anyone that is serious about self defense will get the training needed, either formally by taking a class, or informally through family and friends. An example that has proven this to me, is my wife. She had never shot a gun in her life before she married me, and, after a couple of trips to the range with my father and me, she is as or more proficient with everything from a .22 rifle, a .45, 12-gauge, all the way up to an AK, than me. Hell, my 5 year-old is pretty durn good with an air-rifle.

My point is, proper training isn't necessarily formal training and most any private citizen that wants to protect themselves will do what it takes. I think that a few accidents here and there is a fair price to pay to know that you and your neighbors will be able to protect yourselves and each other. The pros far outweigh the cons.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Mark.

[Chaossaber314]

Coroner: Colorado gunman killed himself - CNN.com

Damn, this guy was not going to stop.

I can't seem to get a straight answer on whether or not he managed to shoot other people after he was hit the first time by the security guard.

This seems to imply that but isn't clear to me.

Police say before Murray, 24, went down, he shot and killed sisters Stephanie and Rachael Works, ages 18 and 16, and wounded their father, who was in or near their car in the parking lot of New Life Church in Colorado Srings, Colorado.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Citizens can be trained and armed and not work as security guards as well. In this case, perhaps it was coincidential but this incident could have just as easily been mitigated by a citizen than it was by the security guard.

And if guns were common place in the church, perhaps the gunman would have gone unnoticed until he entered the sanctuary and started shooting parishers in the back as they prayed. The armed guard did her job so that the parishioners could remain safe.

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

[Osborn F Enready]

It proved a valid point, which is that armed, trained citizens, can interact in a positive way to stop armed, rampaging, lone gunmen before they can drive up the casualty and death numbers to ridiculous levels.

As brien said earlier:

Once again Os, we see how certain further deaths were prevented by an armed citizen but the "anti gunners" are loathe to admit it.

[mark3748]

Quote by: The Decider And if guns were common place in the church, perhaps the gunman would have gone unnoticed until he entered the sanctuary and started shooting parishers in the back as they prayed. The armed guard did her job so that the parishioners could remain safe.

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

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It proved a valid point, which is that armed, trained citizens, can interact in a positive way to stop armed, rampaging, lone gunmen before they can drive up the casualty and death numbers to ridiculous levels. As brien said earlier:

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.