Pharyngula

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?

Posted by: Mike | December 9, 2007 10:17 PM

Colorado's gun laws are pretty lax. I'd want armed security guards at my multi-million dollar megachurch too.

Posted by: Dan | December 9, 2007 10:20 PM

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.

Posted by: Fernando Magyar | December 9, 2007 10:32 PM

They have gyms?!?

Pumping iron for Jesus.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | December 9, 2007 10:44 PM

Here's a link to the local Minneapolis paper with the story.

http://www.startribune.com/local/12293101.html

So sad.

Posted by: LisaS | December 9, 2007 10:54 PM

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?

Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 9, 2007 11:07 PM

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

Posted by: darwinfinch | December 9, 2007 11:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Tony P | December 9, 2007 11:23 PM

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

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 9, 2007 11:33 PM

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?

Posted by: tintenfisch | December 9, 2007 11:36 PM

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.

Posted by: Heather | December 9, 2007 11:37 PM

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

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 9, 2007 11:40 PM

Obviously this is zod's punishment for something someone did.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 9, 2007 11:43 PM

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

Posted by: tintenfisch | December 9, 2007 11:49 PM

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

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 9, 2007 11:55 PM

tintenfisch,

Wow.. Are you going for some kind of record of just how snotty you can be in making light of a murder?

-jcr

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 10, 2007 12:00 AM

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.

I don't believe that's the answer to the question I asked.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 10, 2007 12:01 AM

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.

Posted by: Guest | December 10, 2007 12:02 AM

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.

Posted by: Steve in MI | December 10, 2007 12:07 AM

My previous comment was for John.

Posted by: Heather | December 10, 2007 12:09 AM

If you'd like to try arguing the point, then please do so.

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.

Posted by: gwangung | December 10, 2007 12:15 AM

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.

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.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 10, 2007 12:20 AM

"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

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 10, 2007 12:22 AM

"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

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 10, 2007 12:26 AM

Is it your contention that the security guard was not a citizen? Got any backup for that speculation?

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?

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 10, 2007 12:30 AM

" 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

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 10, 2007 12:34 AM

The numbers show that citizens do at least as well as cops in shoot/don't shoot decisions.

Posted by: mark | December 10, 2007 12:45 AM

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.

Posted by: J Myers | December 10, 2007 12:59 AM

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...

Posted by: inkadu | December 10, 2007 1:18 AM

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.

Posted by: Jason Dick | December 10, 2007 2:13 AM

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.

Posted by: Silicon Owl | December 10, 2007 2:35 AM

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

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 10, 2007 2:43 AM

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

Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 10, 2007 3:05 AM

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.

Posted by: Silicon Owl | December 10, 2007 3:19 AM

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.

Posted by: Brian X | December 10, 2007 3:45 AM

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.

Posted by: Ragutis | December 10, 2007 4:41 AM

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.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 10, 2007 5:23 AM

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.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | December 10, 2007 5:49 AM

And who is behind it all? Al-Qaeda! Deviously disguising themselves as white people, no less!

Posted by: jpf | December 10, 2007 5:57 AM

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.

Posted by: ChemBob | December 10, 2007 6:11 AM

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.

Posted by: maxi | December 10, 2007 7:03 AM

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.

Posted by: g | December 10, 2007 7:31 AM

jcr,

I find the idea of granting every single person who asks for a gun a w