Let’s put a little brain power, instead of raw emotion into this issue of mass shootings.
First, is to bring it down to raw simplicity. Two factors were involved.
1. A gunman broke through glass to get into a school. He went in and shot 26 people.
2. There was nobody present that could stop him.
Deal with those two
Why he did it is irrelevant. The incessant question is a distraction from the real issues to stop this.
The usual discussions have immediately ensued while the bodies are still being sorted out. Discussions about society, gun laws, spiritual matters, and all the usual cliches that get thrown in the air every time this happens.
Then it will all wear off and we’ll forget it for a few weeks …… until it happens again. Nausea should grip anybody who can follow a clear line of reasoning to a logical conclusion.
All the stuff mentioned above is fine as far as discussion and procedure. All of it will take time to change and effectively implement, whatever direction is taken.
Problem: We’re years away from any solution to this if there is a solution at all. There are somewhere between 250,000,000 and 300,000,000 guns in circulation in the U.S. Those guns are in the hands of multiple millions of owners.
Reality Check: A hundred thousand gun owners did not converge on that school and kill people. A thousand gun owners did not do it. No, not a hundred, fifty or ten.
One gutless, evil madman walked in with multiple weapons and did all the shooting. Just like usual. One man.
If he had died at the door everybody else would still be alive.
Here are the immediate and absolute solutions to this atrocity committed by madmen with guns.
- If you have a business where people gather in numbers, be armed, and have armed people ready to answer, stop, and if necessary kill somebody threatening to shoot people.
- If you own or are responsible for a large business, shopping center, mall, stadium, be sure you have armed, trained security at every point where somebody may enter with the intent to kill people.
- If you are responsible for any business, organization, church or other place in states where concealed carry is legal, don’t put up a ridiculous no-guns sign. It will only keep out the guns of people who are not there to hurt anybody. Allow people to shoot back if necessary.
- Unrelentingly press legislators to allow concealed carry in their states or districts.
- Unrelentingly require armed security and/or allow armed, trained teachers to be available to protect elementary and primary schools.
In case I missed any scenarios above, read: Armed, trained security, civilian or professional.
Somebody prepared to shoot back and take out a murderer before they have the chance to murder.
That is not to negate all other discussion. It is not to prevent any change.
It is the immediate and effective way to prevent mass murderers from murdering.
So, why did I write this?
Because I’m heart-broken over the children that were lost in this and other mindless killings. Because I know the only viable answer to what would have saved them and what will save others.
Trained, prepared, armed security, professional or civilian.
Kill the killer. Before he takes a life.
Correct. Absolutely correct. I may be sharing your article Monday with the administration in the building (NYS public school) in which I work. It’ll be a hard sell.
I would go so far as to say if armed, trained security people are in place, it will stop most of these before they start. Why do you think these crazy people target churches, schools and malls? Because most of them have a ban on firearms on the premises.
That is absolutely correct and very well worded. As a bornagain Christian I believe murder is wrong but I do believe that we need to be allowed to protect ourselves. Like you said, Have armed, TRAINED, and prepared security, professional or civilian.
You are in my prayers for your plans. I suggest enlisting God’s help in the process
Amen and thank you, someone finally has some good advise. This has to STOP to many innocent people being killed.
Letter to Editor-Preschool shooting
For Guest Column
The recent school shooting tragedy has shocked and saddened all of us. While we mourn the deaths we wonder how someone could be so depraved as to deliberately take the lives of innocent children and we seek to find realistic ways to prevent these tragedies from reoccurring.
Politicians and the anti gun crowd are, as usual, quick to respond to tragedies like this with their usual illogical, hysterical and emotionally based anti gun rants. This knee jerk liberal outburst in reaction to gun violence merely gives anti gun advocates a springboard for misguided and misinformed gun-control advocacy. Their moment in the spotlight can appear to offer “the solution” to gun violence and make they feel good as well as politicizing the issue at the expense of real solutions.” They seem more interested in pursuing their agenda rather than seeking a real solution. This is not just detrimental to finding real solutions; it is abhorrent, as it allows more of these tragedies to happen. These victims deserve better than to be used to pursue a wrongful and self serving agenda which does nothing to address the issue.
We already have an abundance of gun laws, some good, and some bad. One thing has become clear, and that is that outright bans on guns and restricting people’s second amendment rights are not the solution (just look at the crime rate in Washington DC and Chicago).The police, despite their best efforts, normally arrive after the crime has been committed, as was true this week. Disarming law abiding citizens merely makes for more easy targets for the bad guys. We must stop trying to confront this problem with emotionally driven, liberal solutions and instead use tactics that work. To do otherwise is to invite more tragedies. Gun Free zones do not make Crime Free zones!! Evil people exist and will always find ways to accomplish their goals. One day after the shootings in Connecticut, a man in Beijing stabbed 22 primary school students with a knife. “Unconscionable acts of violence have been committed throughout history without the use of guns. That’s why as Americans engage in yet another round of debates over the issue, it’s important that one thing in particular is not overlooked: The role of evil.”
Another issue which has a strong bearing on this unleashing of violence by individuals is our handling of the mentally ill. “Whereas we once used to hospitalize people diagnosed with mental disorders, so they could be treated and monitored in a secure environment we now give them some medication and release them into society while telling them to be sure to take their medication. Now, most of the mentally ill are out on the streets or in prison. The New York Times study found that at least half the killers in 100 rampage attacks showed signs of serious mental health problems. 48 killers were formally diagnosed with mental illness, often schizophrenia. The laws have been changed to state that the mentally ill cannot be hospitalized until they’ve already attacked someone. A New York Times study of rampage killers found that six of them were into violent video games. Research shows that violent video games and television desensitize people and promote aggressive behavior, despite claims to the contrary”. Rachel Alexander Townhall.com
Our schools in their roll of IN LOCO PARENTIS have a high degree of responsibility to take every reasonable precaution to protect our children, and I believe they do try. However, in the area of protection against the type of violence we have just seen, more needs to be done. My suggestion is to make it difficult for a person to enter the individual class room and make each room a “safe roomy hardening the doors and door locks much like they have done with the cockpit access doors on commercial aircraft. The admin areas should also be hardened and an intruder alert system implemented that would immediately send an alarm out to go into lockdown mode in seconds. As a secondary measure, having one or more school officials trained, equipped (including body amour) and able to offer an immediate “armed” response to a threat, would save lives. I know it would have in this case since the perpetrator was not skilled in firearms.
While we mourn the loss of these innocents can we please work together to find realistic solutions based on common sense and not emotional and politically driven agendas? Please remember all those families who have lost loved ones and children in this tragedy.
David Sayers
945 SE Terrace
Roseburg 97470
541-672-8858
Note to Vicki Menard
Regarding my “expertise” I have a Bachelors Degree in Business administration as well as a degree in Criminal Justice and have been involved in law enforcement and the military. I am also a member of the NRA and have over fifty years experience with firearms.
I think the equation is so simple that people are confused on both sides of the issue. By all means, law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves, that’s ones right inside of their homes and elsewhere where safety is the predominate concern. However, there is a clear distinction between a defensive weapon and an offensive weapon.
Understand the data…..most defensive handgun encounters are over within the first (one) to three rounds fired. Moreover, from a public defense and safety perspective, the average citizen is not trained to the level to engage is a prolonged gun battle (multiple shots fired) without endangering the lives of innocent bystanders. And why would any sane person want to engage in a prolonged gun battle in the first place?
Therefore, there is no rational need for the average non-law enforcement citizen to be armed beyond their sole desire/responsibility to defend themselves in such cases.
In my sincere opinion, the best argument to satisfy the desires of both oppositions (anti and pro gun rights) is to simply limit the public’s firepower according to the exclusive need to defend and protect. That said, the right to carry a handgun such as a revolver or semi-auto limited to 5 – 7 rounds is a reasonable compromise. And given the level of crime in our society, it’s a justified middle-of-the-road deterrent to criminal’s ill desires to prey on the defenseless innocent.
Even in the subsequent case whereas there’s an encounter with some mentally deranged individual bent on creating mayhem with offensive weaponry, law abiding citizens can have a increased single or joint ability to neutralize a threat and save lives. Here however, I advocate basic training and drug testing for anyone licensed (carry permit) to possess a firearm in public the same way we license the public to operate a vehicle. It’s a public safety issue combined with the right to carry. And it doesn’t diminish the second amendment in any way, it actually fulfills it.
These are real issues, and I argue to keep them real by perpetuating commonsense with measured solutions. That said, us gun rights people need to first recognize the rights of American public to live in a safe and secure environment as a public safety issue. Therefore, the goal is to do the right thing by protecting the rights of all people and not just the few…..and put all the politics aside becuase they are one sided.
The only “clear distinction” between a defensive weapon and offensive weapon is determined by who is holding it. I own 5 semi auto handguns, including a GLOCK. I own 5 shotguns and 4 revolvers. I own 4 rifles. None of those are “offensive” weapons. Why? Because they are not used to initiate harm to people. Any of those guns could become a defensive weapon if somebody forced me to use them in that capacity.
A derringer is an “offensive” weapon if somebody pulls it out, points it at you and shoots you. What a weapon looks like does not determine whether it is offensive or defensive. And the issue with that is whether it is in criminal or law abiding hands.
All that dialogue is about general gun use in public that will be debated endlessly.
The article is about the specific situation of being ready for people who are heavily armed and intent on killing a multitude of people. It refers to any place people gather in numbers, including schools.
If you had been on site when the shooting took place in Connecticut, when the guy hit the door carrying an AR-15 and two semi auto handguns would your 5-7 rounds have been sufficient for you at that point? At what point would the bodies piling up justify shooting back with the possibility that an innocent bystander may be hit?
I notice you used the word(s) common sense.
What “common sense” should tell all of us at this point is to deal with the kind of shooters showing up to kill multiple victims, we better have people trained, armed and ready to stop them if there is any hope to reduce or eliminate the body counts.
Let’s stay on the specific subject here. The discussion is specifically about what should be present when mass shooters show up, not about our personal self defense when we run out to the mailbox.
Mr. Rogers, i assume you are a former Military or Law Enforcement individual. No bleeding heart liberal garbage from you. Plain common sense. The criminal does not read “No Gun Signs”, and more than likely, no CCW Permit. His gun(s) do not have a receipt with them, and were either stolen, or illegally purchased. Large capacity mags can be ordered from many Countries outside the U.S. and come in plain packaging, so scratch that idea of banning them in the U.S. I an former Military, USMC and Viet Nam Vet. If all of the law abiding citizens with permits were allowed to carry anywhere, with certain restrictions of course, perhaps Columbine might not have happened, the theatre killings might not have happened, Newtown might not have happened, but even if they did happen, enough armed citizens with proper training and the ‘balls’ to shoot might have prevented or at least minimized the loss of life. One innocent child is too much…..20 is unforgiveable!
As background; I am a Nam combat vet who also served in Laos & Cambodia. I hold Bachelor, Master, and Doctorial degrees. I am now retired after more than 30 years as an agent of one of this countries law enforcement/intelligence organizations.
It is my belief that I will allow others to sit behind a desk somewhere and try to figure out WHY mass killers -KILL ! My immediate focus is on stopping the killing STAT! Any person intent upon (for whatever reason) inflicting massive casualties on innocent persons; will seek the path of least resistance in selecting his/her target. His basic requirements are 1.) A location that assures that there will be a large number of people present. 2.) A location with ease of entrance, no guards, gates, etc.3.) A location that is expressly a “Gun Free Zone”, that minimizes the possibility of discovery or confrontation by an trained armed threat. 4.) and finally the possession of firearms and ammunition, no matter how it was acquired.
My suggestions to the type of venues described, via their Administrators, are few and quite basic!
1.) End the concept of “Gun Free Zones”, make welcome the presence of legally armed and trained
persons. Make known the presence, in the facility, of armed trained persons who will, if need be,
SHOOT BACK!
2.) Form an alliance with local law enforcement with the goal of establishing a formal firearms,
and firearms safety program that would/could produce the group of Trained Safety Aides.
Training programs could also draw on the avability of NRA Certified Trainers. TRAINING MUST
BE CONTINUEOUS AND ONGOING!
Are you saying that we should have had an armed guard at the school entrance? So presumably at every school? That would likely have stopped this but where does the funding come from? You will have fairly stringent profiling requirements before someone is allowed to carry in front of a school with little kids about.
Security has to be the best that can be obtained by whatever funding or lack of it is available. Security can be trained civilian volunteers or members of the staff. It does not have to be limited to hired security. It can be as simple as teachers being allowed to carry concealed handguns. Absent the ability of somebody to shoot back, there will continue to be high body counts when this happens.
I agree with Mark. I don’t believe that a lack of qualified volunteers would be a problem. Under the federal Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) retired officers/agents keep their concealed carry rights by qualifying every 6 months, and a recommendation from their department/agency. These folks are obviously well trained. The only possible problem I could forsee would be insurance, however, the cost to a school district to insure participants would be much less than adding them to payroll as employees.
Mark, Thank you for your thoughts and your writings. I had this exact conversation with my daughter on Saturday after she arrived home from Arizona where she attends college(we live in Colorado). By the way, she is in her senior year and will be starting her career as a elementary school teacher. That is why this is so relevant to me. What is so frustrating is that the “Left” has taken away from law abiding citizens is the means to protect themselves and those around them. And they just don’t get it! On a side note, my biggest fear for my Son whom serves in the 101st Airborne is that some idiot politician will make an idiotic decision
that costs him his life, like not allowing him to not have bullets in his gun.
Thanks again.
May God Bless Us All.
Like the idioc decision that precludes some military from having bullets in their guns; would be the “fire only when fired upon” concept. I don’t know about you, but I am not in the habit of reserving the second shot for myself.
Right after I became an attorney in Vegas a crazy man stormed the federal court house here and shot several federal guards and killed two. They were ex-military who were highly trained. They still died. He killed everyone at the door. They had families. The only guards who survived were the ones not at the door. So how many do you propose we have? Because court houses are full of them and they can come from every direction. And what about these peoples families? Because good people still died and still left their families that day. Good people die every time a mass shooting occurs with a weapon designed to take out a city blocks worth of people in matter of seconds. Training or no training, humans don’t repel bullets to the head.
I guess what I am trying to say is that your argument is to replace children with less sympathetic targets and the problem goes away. For me, it doesn’t.
On December 9, 2007, after killing 2 around 12:30 a.m. at YWAM youth missions center, Matthew Murray killed two and wounded several others at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO. He entered the church foyer around 1 p.m. with a rifle, two pistols, and as usual, plenty of ammo necessary to kill a multitude of people. He was shot multiple times and stopped by a church security staffer, Jeanne Assam, who shot him with her personal concealed carry handgun. Your statement that my argument is to replace children with less sympathetic targets is essentially correct. While children are the focus in this case, it applies to any place people gather in numbers. And no, the problem doesn’t “go away”.
The problem is maniacal shooters. Alive, they kill people. Dead or disabled, they stop. It’s that simple.
Armed personnel to greet them gives everybody a chance. Anybody looking for a perfect solution is deluded. If you’re an attorney, you should be able to follow your own line of reasoning to a logical conclusion, which you haven’t.
You appear to be under the impression that because armed personnel might get shot, there shouldn’t be any. That being the case, why don’t we just disband police departments, remove all security from courthouses, take Secret Service details off the president, remove people like Jeanne Assam from church security teams ….. on and on that could go. None of those are perfect. But they have a fighting chance when the shooter shows up. Without armed security, there is no chance that multiple people will not die when a shooter starts what he does.
It’s your kind of reasoning that keeps this debate going around in circles instead of decisively focusing on what stops mass shooters.
It’s the extremist reasoning combined with access to extreme weaponry that gets us into the mess in the first place.
Mass shootings are generally performed with massive amounts of ammunition fired from weapons capable of holding and discharging such firepower. And despite the fact that these mass shootings are generally carried out by persons with personality disorders, escalating the situation by deploying countermeasures of equal firepower isn’t applicable in what’s supposed to be a civil society. That would make a civil society and its citizens perpetually dysfunctional. What’s up next, hand-grenades and shoulder fired rockets?
That said, despite of the fact that such countermeasures are logical in a warzone, America is not at war with itself, (and I’ll reiterate) and nor should it appear to be through public deployment and displays of massive firepower.
The question becomes one of, what can we do? And although what we can do is limited considering all the factors, it is those things that we should do. And that’s the commonsense I’m suggesting.
So, when you ask the question, “If you had been on site when the shooting took place in Connecticut, when the guy hit the door carrying an AR-15 and two semi auto handguns would your 5-7 rounds have been sufficient for you at that point?”
The answer is it only takes one well placed shot to stop or diminish a threat. And even if I would have died in the attempt, my efforts could have altered the situation enough to save a child’s life.
I’m not suggesting equal firepower. Just enough firepower in the hands of trained people to reasonably have a chance of stopping a well armed shooter in their path.
And yeah, if you had been present with with your one shot chance, you might have saved a child’s life. Problem with that scenario, very few people on earth can fire with that kind of precision under stress, depending on one shot to resolve the attack from a deranged, heavily armed shooter. The “one shot stop” is tough talk, but unrealistic, even in the hands of active military or police personnel.
If trained personnel, with sufficient firepower to stop the shooter had been present, it might have altered the situation enough to save every child’s life.
Mark, thank you for another well written and logical article.
When are the sheep going to wake up and realize gun free zones are nothing but an invitation to slaughter. Kind of like letting the fox into the hen house.
What do you think of the NRA’s proposal? I thought it was pretty good.
Hi “M Freeman” and Kali
Coming from a Christian world view, society is dysfunctional and always will be due to the issue of man’s depravity. No amount of white wash can conceal that. The answer to that is soteriological and eschatological. We are not dealing with a “tabula rasa” (sp.?) but rather “I was shapen in iniquity” (Psalm 51:5)
Defining “extremist reasoning” and “extremist weaponry”, particularly the former, comes down to the eye of the beholder. The hyperbole that Kali used when she said “Good people die every time a mass shooting occurs with a weapon designed to take out a city blocks worth of people in matter of seconds”. , makes an emotional point. The hyperbole is the description of the weapon.
However, you described a blockbuster bomb, not a M4 Semiautomatic detachable magazine rifle. To extend the point logically, I would add that many times good people die when any fatal shooting occurs.
So what to do about it? The answer to that question will depend on your worldview. IF you are the “Star Trek the Next Generation” kinda person, then by all means, outlaw guns and any other method that an evolved piece of slime might us to terminate the existence of another highly evolved piece of slime. After all, you do not know what benefit that terminated piece of highly evolved slime might have benefited the race as a whole with their genetic material.
If your worldview is formed by the Christian faith, based on the revelation of that faith in the Bible, then allow each being, created in the image of God, the ability to protect that God given life. Whether it be with knives, swords, or chemically powered ballista.
We will never be able to eradicate evil from society nor secure every one from every possible injury nor danger. It is an attempt to be God. Not possible.
We can recognize the dangers as they present themselves and then allow individuals their God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means we allow and encourage them to prepare accordingly. “The horse is prepared against the day of battle, but safety is of the LORD.” (Proverbs 21:31)
To remove a teacher/administrator/school employee’s rights to protect their life in an effort to make school zone’s safe is to deny the Christian worldview and make the world a safe place for the oppressor. To remove an employee’s right to self-defense is making the workplace safe for the oppressor. The remove a resident’s rights to self defense, either in the home or away from the home, is to make the state safe for the oppressor. Then to remove the support of righteousness from the public sphere, to remove the Christian worldview because we have evolved beyond such childish things, is to invite the oppressor to fill that vacuum. Who knows how that will be expressed.
In France, the Committee for Public Safety was formed. But we are beyond such things. The list can go on, but I will not bore you with citations. Frankly, I do not have the time to list the countries where they removed God and then strove to control the oppressors that filled the void.
America is at war with itself, just as every country in the world is a war zone. It is only that some war zones are hotter than others. The war is not between an invading nation, but rather between anarchy (everyman doing that which is right in his own eyes. Judges 21:25) and righteousness (as embodied in the Ten Commandments).
So I agree with Mark Rogers. What he presented is both rational and feasible. More to the point, it is righteous.
A couple of years ago my wife and I were watching election results of an attempt to limit abortion. The pro-lifers lost the vote but the sad part was watching the pro-choice people laughing, hugging and cheering because they maintained the right to continue murdering over 1 million children a year.
Add this to violent video games, states poo-pooing federal drug laws by legalizing drug use, and voting to educate and give drivers licenses to illegal (ILLEGAL) aliens, the tolerant (?) left condeming religion, the religious, patriotism and anything that is good and moral and you can begin to see why someone with mental problems could have their vision of right and wrong blurred.
As for armed citizens/school guards etc. It’s the only solution as we’ve tried the nicey-nicey peace and love route and you can see where we are.
I agree with Mark Rogers on all the points he has presented. I would add this. It is my opinion that it is not just the right, but the duty, of every responsible citizens to arm themselves and train with that firearm to become proficient with that arm so they are prepared to defend their life and the lives of others if needed. By doing this a “well regulated militia” is achieved.
If I remember my history correctly, the citizens of the early States would gather in the town square after Church and train for the defense of the town. (Probably dry fire unless their was an area they set aside for marksmanship shooting, like a turkey shoot.)This is not possible with the change in population, it would be nice to see a firing range in cities where citizens could train and exchange information and help other become trained, proficient and safe with their arms. I know there are private ranges that this happens. I was thinking along the lines of the city having a range for this sponsored by the citizens. Local law enforcement and other professionals could help provide training assistance as needed.
A solution where no one dies is idealistic. Can it happen, yes, when a violent assailant is confronted by citizens with force it is possible that no one dies, provided the assailant stops their action before shots are fired. This is rare but possible. It can not happen without armed citizens prepared and trained for defense.
My heart also aches for those families who have lost loved ones to the senseless murders we have all read about.I strongly feel that we as individuals need to be more readily available and more aware of our surroundings in these days we are living in.I wish every law abiding citizen had a ccw permit.The bad guy would be less prone to enter an area where the odds were not in his favor.I also believe that we should have armed guards protecting our children.Our president has them protecting his.I think it is time to start taking care of those here at home and using funding that is presently being used to train Afghanistan and Iraq soldiers in protecting their people and bringing that same money back home to protect our own.