It absolutely broke my heart to read about the tragedy that struck Maryville, Illinois' First Baptist Church on Sunday morning. Accounts say that a gunman walked in and while details are sketchy, he did approach the front of the church, had some words with the pastor and then shot him, killing him. His handgun then jammed at which point he produced a knife and somehow stabbed himself before being tackled by two parishioners who also got stabbed.
I don't know Pastor Fred Winters, but his family is in my prayers for the forseeable future. I cannot imagine what they must be going through right now - he had two adolescent or teenage daughters. Been married for 22 years, and has pastored that church just as long. Such senseless violence, in a church of all places - a place that is supposed to be a shelter or refuge for both saved and unsaved alike. Thankfully, Pastor Winters knew the Lord.
I can't say where the gunman's head was at when he perpetrated this awful crime, but I will be praying for him as well, for his salvation, as hard as that may be for me and I'm sure, others, to do.
I read about this account once I got home from a new church that I started attending (in the past two weeks). This church is a rather large church, much like the Maryville congregation. It is situated in a fairly remote location. And I was sitting there thinking, in the past couple of years, there have been several reported church shootings. It's sad when people may feel apprehensive about going to church in the upcoming weeks. I remember after the Colorado and Tennessee church shootings, I went to my next church service wondering what my own plan would be should a gunman burst onto the scene during a service. But these shootings are so rare, but when it happens, people take notice.
And unfortunately, people tend to look at the whole gun control debate as a result. Lots of website comments have indicated that concealed carry laws or the ability to exercise the same, may have averted this tragedy. I'm not so sure of this - after all, the accused shot the pastor pretty quickly, by all accounts - even if someone in the congregation was armed, would they have been close enough to the perpetrator and pastor in order to safely fire a shot to stop the gunman? I'm not so sure. Maybe it would have subdued him after he took the shot and saved the two heroes from getting wounded in tackling him. But I think Pastor Winters would have been shot regardless.
I'm pro-firearms ownership, but I am on the fence when it comes to concealed carry. On some days, I'm a staunch supporter of it. On other days, I have to think long and hard. I am a firm believer that those who wish to perpetrate public shootings tend to pick the "gun free" zones like churches and schools. Illinois have fairly strict regulations for gun ownership (that is, compared to the rest of the U.S. I know this because the fellow I deal with at my local gun shop is from Chicago). I'm not sure if they are a concealed carry (CC) state or not, but regardless, I am not sure if it will help.
I worry about who gets CC licences, even though I agree with them in principle. Think about this - the gunman today is reported to not have a previous criminal record. In effect, he could have gotten a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) if he wanted, if Illinois is a CC state (which again, I'm not sure - I suspect probably not). Think of all the law abiding citizens that cut you off on the road. Have you been upset by that? I have. Have I wanted to crash my car into them to teach them a lesson? Sometimes. Have I uttered obscenities towards them? It's to my shame that I mention that once or twice, the answer is yes. Now, my wife will tell you, I'm a pretty genteel person overall. But just as with even the most calm people, something...eventually...can set them off. I am just not sure whether giving everyone a CC is the right thing to do - overall, I do know that more guns do equal less crime. Deterrence is a strong thing. Had the gunman known that parishoners at First Baptist Church can and are armed - would have have selected that church? I have a hard time believing he would. Again, notice that the public shootings for the past 15 years or so almost always seem to be in a place that is considered gun-free (schools, malls, churches, restaurants). You almost never see these tragedies happening at gun clubs or target shooting places, even though there is a high concentration of guns there.
Now, back to churches. I'm not sure what the answer is here. Perhaps armed guards are an answer, but has it gotten so bad that we have to resort to this? Maybe so - the Bible tells us that the depravity of man gets worse and worse over time. People should be able to go to a church or a school without fear of violence inflicted upon them. But it is becoming clear that such a notion may be idealistic at best. People can't just wish away violence. Unfortunately, it's everywhere.
A good starting place is prayer, and not just for victims, but perpetrators as well. People need the Lord more than ever, and there hasn't been as fertile of a ground for evangelism than ever before. Perhaps if more people knew the Lord, less of these things would happen. Even then, I realize that I too am projecting an idealism that may not mirror reality. But God is more powerful than the laws that we enact or not enact, and is more than powerful enough to change the hearts of man.
In the meantime, I'd encourage all my readers to keep First Baptist Church in Maryville, Illinois, in your prayers, and especially Pastor Winters' family as they mourn and try to make sense of this terrible tragedy. May God's enduring peace and His comfort blanket over them at this time.
Showing posts with label concealed carry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label concealed carry. Show all posts
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Chris Reid...Speak It, Bro.
So I was dropping my car off at the dealership last night, and happened to glance over at the Toronto Star (which essentially is the liberal metro paper in Toronto). I don't necessarily agree with everything the Star says, but I have always enjoyed the layout and the amount of information packed in the Star. It is by and large a better read (from a reading perspective) than the more conservative Toronto Sun, which even though it may share more of my socially conservative views, is in a more tabloid format with only grade-six vocabulary and enough ads to shake a stick at (I hate ads), not to mention one of the main drawing points, the "Sunshine Girl". My Dad reads the Sun, but I don't care for it at all. Anyway, since I was waiting for my shuttle, I thought I'd check out the latest Star. Right on the front page was an article about a local Toronto Conservative Party candidate, who has stepped down amid what the Star deems as "controversial" comments regarding concealed handgun carry. Now, the context, as the Star states, is that candidate Chris Reid has indicated in his blog, that Canadians should be able to conceal carry handguns for personal self-defence. What is wrong with that? Well, I suppose expressing an opinion in Toronto is a God-given right...only when that opinion is in step with the general liberal and left-wing mindset. To express anything else is to be met with a fury of politically correct outage.
I wrote Chris an encouraging response on his blog, showing my support. But more than that, I think this year has really shown me the clear liberal bias in almost every media outlet available. Never before have I see such a blatant unwillingness to reign in personal opinion and separate it from objective journalistic reporting. I suppose those who have seen Campbell Brown's CNN interview with Tucker Bounds will no doubt see this at its worst (if she ain't in the tank for Obama, I'll be happy to endorse my next paycheque to anyone who can prove otherwise). It's fine to have your own personal preference, but as a journalist, I think it's necessary to keep it in check and simply regurgitate the facts, and leave the op-ed stuff to the...well, op-ed people, and the talk show hosts, whose jobs it is to dissect these issues from a particular political bent.
Anyway, as I was reading the reporting on Chris Reid's views (Chris is gay, and whatever you or I may think of that, that's beside the issue, in my opinion - but I only mention it to show that I don't discount views necessarily because of who the speaker is), I couldn't help but think to myself that these gun control types really have the wool pulled over their eyes.
Today, I see the sad news item about yet another school shooting, this time in Finland. Multiple casualities were reported. Now, I know the media will once again go on its rampage, insisting the all guns be banned. I have already written a bit about all this, and will try not to rehash it, but if you are reading this and believe that banning guns is the solution, think for a moment about these points:
One, why is it that these public shootings always seem to be at a school, or a public shopping mall or a church or whatever? Because these places are either legislated or generally accepted to be gun-free zones. If I was a potential mass killer, where would I go to inflict the most carnage - at a shooting range or a gun show, or at a school or shopping centre? I would think twice about the shooting range or gun show, since I know that most people there would be armed and would not hesitate to take me down if I start threatening lives. Whereas at a school, you know that many of these educational institutions have a zero tolerance policy for guns and anything else that is not the flowerly "make love not war" or "tolerance" mantras that you have come to envision associated with these places. My son's school forbids even water pistols or army fatigues for kids (no one says anything to me when I wear my army pants and my Remington hat there). You know that the teachers, as good people as some of them may be, take orders from the school board, who generally are controlled by a liberal-bias government. For them, guns are bad, and they won't even engage in a healthy debate on this.
Remember last year, there was a rash of shootings in the U.S. in churches? What ended up happening? The gunman was eventually subdued through the timely assistance of a woman parishoner who happened to have a concealed carry licence and her firearm on hand. Had she not had her gun, there would have been mass carnage at that church and the gunman would have simply moved on to the next church.
Second, as I said before and I'll say it more briefly this time, gun control laws target the wrong people. I find it hard to believe that anyone can successfully argue that criminals will obey gun control laws, since by definition, criminals do not obey laws. Legislating a handgun ban would only hurt the legitimate gun owners, who are law abiding and have taken courses, passed rigorous written and practical examinations, have passed extensive background checks, and have paid the appropriate fees to be licensed. These are not exactly the types of folks who will put their reputation at risk in using their firearms unwisely. Instead, it is the criminal who has no intention to follow any laws, who will undoubtedly procure a stolen firearm (from the U.S. most likely) and use it to commit a crime. Banning handguns or firearms in general will not do anything here. Case in point - look at places like the U.K., who have banned guns for oh...more than a decade now. Guess what? Their crime has not gone down - in fact, it has gone up, but more than that, the kicker is that their gun crime has gone up by over 100%. Yet, supposedly there are no guns there. Same trend has happened in Australia. Even in the U.S. there are supposed "gun free zones" like Washington D.C. Yet, the the gun crime rate in Washington D.C. is at epidemic levels. What does that say about the effectiveness of legislating gun control laws?
Now, Mr. Reid's comments were based, as reported in the Star, on the horrific beheading incident on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this summer. Now, here's where Reid and my opinions will differ. I don't believe that having concealed handguns on that bus would have made a difference. Based on the tight quarters and the amount of people packed into those same quarters, it would have been difficult at best, and dangerous at worst, to take down a crazed assailant at the back of a bus, wielding a machete, who likely killed his victim pretty quickly, while scores of people are trying to exit the bus from back to front.
Do I support full concealed carry? Generally, yes, I do, and this is despite the fact that I do not own a handgun (but I am a firearm owner). I do believe in using firearms for self-defence for the home. Do I think that that guns will deter crime? I definitely do, and regardless of what your own personal views are on this one, I'd encourage you to at least examine John Lott's book, "More Guns Less Crime", which as an academic, economist and statistician, he takes the reader on a very long, detailed and comprehensive journey on crime stats as it relates to concealed carry laws, utilizing countless variables regressions, timeframes and geographies. It is published by the University of Chicago Press, and I'd encourage you to get the second edition, which has more current stats (which only buttress the original findings) and in which Lott responds to his critics convincingly. If after reading that book, you still believe that having concealed handguns will not deter crime, please shoot me an email and tell me why.
I wrote Chris an encouraging response on his blog, showing my support. But more than that, I think this year has really shown me the clear liberal bias in almost every media outlet available. Never before have I see such a blatant unwillingness to reign in personal opinion and separate it from objective journalistic reporting. I suppose those who have seen Campbell Brown's CNN interview with Tucker Bounds will no doubt see this at its worst (if she ain't in the tank for Obama, I'll be happy to endorse my next paycheque to anyone who can prove otherwise). It's fine to have your own personal preference, but as a journalist, I think it's necessary to keep it in check and simply regurgitate the facts, and leave the op-ed stuff to the...well, op-ed people, and the talk show hosts, whose jobs it is to dissect these issues from a particular political bent.
Anyway, as I was reading the reporting on Chris Reid's views (Chris is gay, and whatever you or I may think of that, that's beside the issue, in my opinion - but I only mention it to show that I don't discount views necessarily because of who the speaker is), I couldn't help but think to myself that these gun control types really have the wool pulled over their eyes.
Today, I see the sad news item about yet another school shooting, this time in Finland. Multiple casualities were reported. Now, I know the media will once again go on its rampage, insisting the all guns be banned. I have already written a bit about all this, and will try not to rehash it, but if you are reading this and believe that banning guns is the solution, think for a moment about these points:
One, why is it that these public shootings always seem to be at a school, or a public shopping mall or a church or whatever? Because these places are either legislated or generally accepted to be gun-free zones. If I was a potential mass killer, where would I go to inflict the most carnage - at a shooting range or a gun show, or at a school or shopping centre? I would think twice about the shooting range or gun show, since I know that most people there would be armed and would not hesitate to take me down if I start threatening lives. Whereas at a school, you know that many of these educational institutions have a zero tolerance policy for guns and anything else that is not the flowerly "make love not war" or "tolerance" mantras that you have come to envision associated with these places. My son's school forbids even water pistols or army fatigues for kids (no one says anything to me when I wear my army pants and my Remington hat there). You know that the teachers, as good people as some of them may be, take orders from the school board, who generally are controlled by a liberal-bias government. For them, guns are bad, and they won't even engage in a healthy debate on this.
Remember last year, there was a rash of shootings in the U.S. in churches? What ended up happening? The gunman was eventually subdued through the timely assistance of a woman parishoner who happened to have a concealed carry licence and her firearm on hand. Had she not had her gun, there would have been mass carnage at that church and the gunman would have simply moved on to the next church.
Second, as I said before and I'll say it more briefly this time, gun control laws target the wrong people. I find it hard to believe that anyone can successfully argue that criminals will obey gun control laws, since by definition, criminals do not obey laws. Legislating a handgun ban would only hurt the legitimate gun owners, who are law abiding and have taken courses, passed rigorous written and practical examinations, have passed extensive background checks, and have paid the appropriate fees to be licensed. These are not exactly the types of folks who will put their reputation at risk in using their firearms unwisely. Instead, it is the criminal who has no intention to follow any laws, who will undoubtedly procure a stolen firearm (from the U.S. most likely) and use it to commit a crime. Banning handguns or firearms in general will not do anything here. Case in point - look at places like the U.K., who have banned guns for oh...more than a decade now. Guess what? Their crime has not gone down - in fact, it has gone up, but more than that, the kicker is that their gun crime has gone up by over 100%. Yet, supposedly there are no guns there. Same trend has happened in Australia. Even in the U.S. there are supposed "gun free zones" like Washington D.C. Yet, the the gun crime rate in Washington D.C. is at epidemic levels. What does that say about the effectiveness of legislating gun control laws?
Now, Mr. Reid's comments were based, as reported in the Star, on the horrific beheading incident on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba earlier this summer. Now, here's where Reid and my opinions will differ. I don't believe that having concealed handguns on that bus would have made a difference. Based on the tight quarters and the amount of people packed into those same quarters, it would have been difficult at best, and dangerous at worst, to take down a crazed assailant at the back of a bus, wielding a machete, who likely killed his victim pretty quickly, while scores of people are trying to exit the bus from back to front.
Do I support full concealed carry? Generally, yes, I do, and this is despite the fact that I do not own a handgun (but I am a firearm owner). I do believe in using firearms for self-defence for the home. Do I think that that guns will deter crime? I definitely do, and regardless of what your own personal views are on this one, I'd encourage you to at least examine John Lott's book, "More Guns Less Crime", which as an academic, economist and statistician, he takes the reader on a very long, detailed and comprehensive journey on crime stats as it relates to concealed carry laws, utilizing countless variables regressions, timeframes and geographies. It is published by the University of Chicago Press, and I'd encourage you to get the second edition, which has more current stats (which only buttress the original findings) and in which Lott responds to his critics convincingly. If after reading that book, you still believe that having concealed handguns will not deter crime, please shoot me an email and tell me why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)